[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22319-22392]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2000

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume 
consideration of H.R. 2466, the Interior appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2466) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Hutchison Amendment No. 1603, to prohibit the use of funds 
     for the purpose of issuing a notice of rulemaking with 
     respect to the valuation of crude oil for royalty purposes 
     until September 30, 2000.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to the motion to 
reconsider the vote by which cloture failed with respect to the 
Hutchison amendment No. 1603, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Before the vote begins, let me announce to my colleagues, 
if the motion is agreed to, we will have an

[[Page 22320]]

immediate vote on the actual reconsideration of the cloture vote. If 
that second vote is agreed to, it is my understanding that we may have 
10 minutes of debate prior to the cloture vote.
  Therefore, Senators can anticipate two immediate votes this morning 
and a third vote occurring shortly thereafter.
  I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 287 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The motion was agreed to.


                      Vote on Motion to Reconsider

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The question is on agreeing to 
the motion to reconsider the vote on amendment No. 1603.
  Mr. GORTON. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 288 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The motion to reconsider was agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No. 
     1603 to Calendar No. 210, H.R. 2466, the Interior 
     appropriations bill:
         Trent Lott, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Gordon Smith of Oregon, 
           Thad Cochran, Larry E. Craig, Bill Frist, Mike Crapo, 
           Don Nickles, Craig Thomas, Chuck Hagel, Christopher S. 
           Bond, Jon Kyl, Peter Fitzgerald, Pete Domenici, Phil 
           Gramm, Slade Gorton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the Hutchison amendment No. 1603 to H.R. 2466, the 
Interior appropriations bill, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. I now ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes of 
debate, equally divided, between Senators Hutchison and Boxer prior to 
the cloture vote on the Hutchison amendment No. 1603.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate so we may be 
able to hear the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia 
is correct. We will not proceed until the Senate is in order.
  If the distinguished Senator from Washington would repeat his 
request, please.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes of 
debate equally divided between Senators Hutchison and Boxer prior to 
the cloture vote on Hutchison amendment No. 1603.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before it counts on my time, I ask the 
Senator from Texas if she wants to begin the debate or finish the 
debate.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will let the Senator from California 
proceed first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  Once more, I tell the Senate, the reason I have taken the Senate's 
time on this is twofold. First, it seems to me an amendment such as 
this does not belong in the Interior bill. In essence, it is a very 
major policy change. Oil companies sign an agreement with the Federal 
Government that, when they have the privilege of drilling on Federal 
lands, be it onshore or offshore, they pay a percentage of the fair 
market value of the production to the Federal Government. This is very 
important because in the Federal Government we use that for the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund, which is so important for our environment, 
historic preservation, national parks, et cetera. The States use their 
share to put the funds right into the classroom.
  If this amendment is approved, if cloture is invoked and the 
amendment is approved, the Land and Water Conservation Fund will lose 
$66 million. Because of this rider, which the Senator from Texas has 
put on these bills on three prior occasions, the Treasury has already 
lost $88 million. Mr. President, we badly need those funds for those 
important purposes of the environment and education.

[[Page 22321]]

  What the Senator's amendment does is stop the Interior Department 
from collecting the appropriate amount of royalties. How do we know we 
are not getting the appropriate amount of royalties? We have 
whistleblowers who have come forward and have told of a scheme to 
defraud the United States of America of the due amount of royalties.
  Just last month, a few weeks ago, Chevron agreed to settle a case on 
royalties, $95 million. This is a headline from the Wall Street 
Journal: Chevron to Pay $95 Million to End Claim It Shortchanged U.S. 
on Royalties.
  The companies are settling these claims at an unbelievable rate--$5 
billion has already been settled by seven States. Twenty-five percent 
of these companies are cheating us, and they don't have a leg to stand 
on. They don't want to go to court. Therefore, they are settling.
  What we know, for example, is that in one of the recent suits that 
was filed, the United States of America has joined two whistleblowers--
and this is the first time this has ever been made public--outlining 
seven schemes by the oil companies to cheat Uncle Sam, cheat the 
taxpayers out of the money. We have heard of the seven wonders of the 
world, and we have heard of the 7 years war and the seven seas and 
seventh heaven and the 7-year itch and 007 and many 7s, but we have 
never heard of the seven schemes of the oil companies until now. In 
essence, all seven schemes have one goal; that is, to show that the 
value of the oil is less than what it really is.
  I think it is time to put an end to this. The USA Today headline says 
it all: It is Time to Clean Up Big Oil's Slick Deal with Congress.
  Reading directly from the article:

       Imagine being able to compute your own rent payments and 
     grocery bills, giving yourself a 3 percent to 10 percent 
     discount off the market price. Over time, that would add up 
     to really big bucks. And imagine having the political clout 
     to make sure nothing threatened to change that cozy 
     arrangement.

  This amendment offered by my friend from Texas allows the oil 
companies to continue this cozy arrangement whereby they decide, these 
25 percent of the oil companies, what they are going to pay the Federal 
Government. In every case, it is below the fair market value.
  This $66 million, as I said before, could do a lot of things. We 
could hire 1,000 teachers with it, or put 44,000 new computers into the 
classroom, or buy textbooks for 1.2 million students, or provide 53 
million hot lunches for schoolchildren.
  So let us not think, when we have this vote, it is a free vote. This 
cloture vote is very important. The Senator from Texas just about 
mustered enough votes. She doesn't have one vote to spare. If just one 
of my colleagues would hear my plea, stand up and say no to this 
cloture, we could stop this thievery in its tracks. That is what it 
is--out-and-out thievery. We need the funds for the functions of 
government. We need the funds for the people of the United States of 
America.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute of my 5 to the junior 
Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
  There have been so many misstatements and mischaracterizations and 
exaggerations and a confusion of facts, as stated by my distinguished 
colleague from California, I literally don't know where to begin. This 
is not about the Land and Water Conservation Fund because there is no 
such real fund where this money goes, and she most certainly knows 
that. It flows directly to the State treasury. I would know, since the 
State of Louisiana contributes 90 percent of the money to the so-called 
fund that doesn't exist.
  This is not an environmental issue. This is about a very complicated 
accounting law governing what huge companies owe the Federal 
Government. They want to pay their fair share. They are actually 
begging to pay their fair share. They want a law that makes clear what 
their fair share is, and they are willing to pay it. That is what this 
argument is about because the current rule makes it more complicated 
and more costly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the distinguished Senator has 
expired.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. May I have 30 more seconds? Fifteen more seconds to 
finish?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Just finish the statement.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I urge my colleagues to rethink their votes on our 
side. I am actually disappointed there are not more than five of us who 
truly understand this issue, with all due respect. I hope some of them 
will think about changing their vote so we can get on with the business 
of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the senior Senator 
from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this question is really about whether we 
are going to pause for 12 months and negotiate or whether we are going 
to litigate for 5 years. I think the Hutchison amendment is very 
helpful in that it says: Let's pause and, instead of fighting it out in 
the courtroom, let's get people to talk about it in their offices, 
between Interior and industry, over what is a fair market value.
  It is well worth a 12-month pause to try to negotiate instead of 
litigating from here on after--that is all the Hutchison amendment 
does--in order to find out what a fair market value truly is. We should 
support it.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today over one-third of the price of a 
gallon of gasoline is taxable. This chart shows the average price of 
gasoline, around $1.20; crude oil is 64 cents, the light part of this 
chart; taxes are 56 cents.
  Now, what the Senator from California would do is raise the price of 
gasoline for every working American by raising the taxes to go up and 
up. In fact, that is what has been happening over the last 10 years. 
From 1990 to 1997, the average per gallon motor fuel tax has gone from 
27 cents per gallon to 40 cents per gallon. The retail price net of 
taxes has stayed approximately the same, going down from 95 cents to 88 
cents. It has actually gone down, but taxes have gone up. Therefore, 
the price of gasoline in 1990 went from $1.21 to $1.29 per gallon in 
1997.
  What the Senator from California would do is add taxes on expenses. 
We have always taxed at the wellhead. Today, we would tax the expenses, 
the transportation expenses, that you have to make to get the oil to 
its destination, the marketing expenses. Can you imagine the concept of 
taxing advertising being done by an agency without congressional 
approval and raising the price of gasoline for every working American? 
That is what blocking this amendment will do. We have 60 votes to go 
forward; 60 people out of 100 in the Senate are saying we should go 
forward and have an up-or-down vote on this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to do what is right and let us have an up-or-
down vote so that we don't raise the price of gasoline at the pump for 
every working American.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has approximately 
30 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, historically, the royalty has been 
calculated at the wellhead. The essence of the problem is that MMS 
decided they want to change that--in many instances, tax it as a 
royalty many miles downstream. They contend there is a duty to market. 
A court has already ruled there is no duty to market. They want to come 
in by the back door and establish regulations and rules that will, 
indeed, tax beyond the real value of the oil, based upon rules and 
regulations. It is a new tax, a backdoor way of taking away our 
prerogative. That is why we have been fighting this for the last 3 
years.

[[Page 22322]]


  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it will raise the price of gasoline at 
the pump for every working American. I urge a vote for cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allotted to the distinguished Senator 
has expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the Hutchison amendment No. 1603 to H.R. 2466, the 
Interior appropriations bill, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 289 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Hutchison amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. As manager of the bill, I yield an additional hour to 
Senator Hutchison of Texas under the provisions of rule XXII, and I am 
authorized to yield an additional hour of the time of the Senator from 
Wyoming, Mr. Enzi.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators yielding time must do so 
personally.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield my hour under rule XXII to Senator 
Gorton.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield my hour under rule XXII to 
Senator Gorton.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield those 2 hours to Senator 
Hutchison.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield my hour to the distinguished Senator, Mr. Byrd.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXII, I yield my 1 hour 
to the minority manager, Senator Byrd.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield my 1 hour of debate to Senator 
Byrd.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the ranking manager of the bill, I now 
have 3 hours, as I understand it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield my 3 hours to the distinguished Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for my own clarification, how much time do 
I have to speak on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator has 1 hour.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, many people who have followed this debate 
over the last weeks and months, I am sure, are curious why the Senate 
has been spending the amount of time it has on this particular issue. 
It is an issue which is of great importance to many of us.
  First, let me salute my colleague, the Senator from California, Mrs. 
Boxer. She has led this fight, and it has been a difficult fight. It 
has involved many hours of debate. It has involved a lot of work on her 
part and that of her staff. I have been happy to join her and to add my 
voice to her cause.
  We have had what might be called a symbolic vote earlier which 
suggests that ultimately the oil companies may prevail on this 
amendment. But I really believe in my heart, if my colleagues, 
particularly on the other side of the aisle, would just for a moment 
follow this debate and come to understand what is at stake, they might 
have a change of mind and a change of heart. Let me explain in the most 
basic terms, as I understand them, why we are here and why we are 
facing this debate.
  Consider for a moment that we in the United States have many 
treasures. Visitors to the Nation's Capitol can see ample evidence of 
the legacy we have been given by previous generations. This magnificent 
building and all the monuments and statues and museums in Washington, 
DC, are not owned by any person. They are owned by America. They are 
owned by the American people. But when it comes to our national 
treasures, they also include public lands, many of them in remote 
places all across the United States, lands, frankly, that we as 
taxpayers own and lands that have value.
  This bill which we are considering, the Department of the Interior 
bill, is one which takes into account these lands and how they are 
managed. The Senate and the House, each in its role, has a chance each 
year to make policy decisions about how we will manage these lands. 
This year, on the Department of the Interior appropriations bill, 
several of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have 
offered what have been called environmental riders.
  To put that in common words, it is an amendment offered by a Senator 
trying to limit, for example, the Department of the Interior in doing 
certain things in relation to these public lands. So we have had a 
parade of amendments involving these public lands and how they will be 
used.
  There have been amendments, for example, to initiate the mining of 
lead in the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri. It is a suggestion 
opposed by the two major newspapers in Missouri, by the Governor, by 
the attorney general, and by every environmental group. But a rider was 
proposed by a Senator from Missouri that would allow lead mining in 
this Mark Twain National Forest, an area that is used for recreation. 
That amendment prevailed. One Democratic Senator joined Republican 
Senators in what was an otherwise very partisan rollcall.
  Another amendment was offered which related to the mining of minerals 
on public lands, so-called hard rock mining. This amendment, which was 
offered, I believe, by the Senator from Washington, said that when it 
came to the mining of those minerals, when companies, private 
companies, would come onto the land owned by America's taxpayers, we 
would change the rules and say when they dumped their waste after their 
mining, they could have more acreage to dump on when they wanted to 
leave the land behind.
  Of course, the mining companies love to mine on public lands because 
we charge royalties which are a joke. They date back to a law over 100 
years old. It is not uncommon for a private mining company, some even 
foreign companies, to be able to mine for minerals on public lands 
owned by the taxpayers and to pay as little as $5 an acre--$5 an acre 
to mine for gold, for example. These companies can literally bring 
millions of dollars of profit out of the public lands owned by this 
country and pay to the Federal Government $5, $10, $15, $100, $1,000.

[[Page 22323]]

  So the amendment proposed by the Republican Senator suggested that 
when they mine this land at these bargain basement royalty prices, they 
will be able to leave more and more acreage of waste dumped behind at 
the expense of future generations.
  We had another amendment relative to grazing. Particularly in the 
West, grazing is an important use of western public lands. I support 
it. But the question was whether or not the ranchers who grazed on 
Federal lands would be able to renew their long-term leases, how much 
they would pay, and what restrictions they would have on how much 
grazing would be allowed. A Republican Senator from New Mexico offered 
an amendment which said these leases for the grazing permits would be 
renewed almost indefinitely. Frankly, many of us thought that was 
something we should question--whether or not we should, from time to 
time, make environmental reviews of the use of grazing permits to make 
certain the public land ended up being used for the best purpose for 
America.
  So time and time again, we have seen a clear difference in philosophy 
from the other side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, and 
the Democratic side of the aisle when it comes to public lands. I will 
only speak for myself, but I will tell you what my philosophy is. I 
believe these public lands are a public trust. I have been honored to 
represent the State of Illinois in the Senate. I believe, in my actions 
and in my votes, I should never compromise the integrity of this legacy 
of public lands that have been left for my supervision, entrusted to 
me. I have tried my best to vote so I can say, whenever I leave this 
body, I took this treasure of public lands and returned it to the next 
generation in as good shape as, or better than, I received it. I think 
that is consistent with the idea of conservation. It is consistent with 
the idea of protection.
  I concede, people can use public lands for profitmaking. That is 
done, of course, by ranchers for grazing and by the mining industry for 
minerals. It is done, as we have discussed earlier, by those who want 
to come in and, for example, drill for oil. I believe companies that do 
that, whether they are cutting wood or drilling for oil, should pay to 
the American taxpayers fair compensation for using the land so I could 
say, if ever held accountable: Yes, it is true, we did allow people to 
cut down trees on public lands; they paid for it; it was not something 
that was in derogation of the value of the land to be left for future 
generations.
  That is my philosophy: Protect the public lands. If people use them, 
they should pay fair compensation to America and its taxpayers for the 
use of the public lands.
  The philosophy on the other side--I will try to characterize as best 
I can--is that the public lands are in some way an intrusion of the 
Federal Government into many of these States. I think there is a 
general resentment that the Federal Government owns so much acreage in 
Western States. Yet the fact is, if the Federal Government had not 
owned this acreage, it is really questionable whether some of these 
States would have finally become populated or become part of the Union. 
The Federal Government took control of the lands in the initiation of 
our great country, and over the years many of these lands have stayed 
in our control. I can understand that if I lived in a Western State, I 
might have a different view. But, frankly, I do not believe they should 
be viewed as antagonistic. These lands are part of our national 
treasure.
  Second, the view on the other side of the aisle is, if a private 
company wants to come in and make money off these public lands, we 
should bend over backwards to make it easy for them and subsidize them. 
That is why we have not changed that mining act for 100 years. That is 
why these companies are paying $5 an acre and taking thousands of 
dollars of profits, millions of dollars of profits, off that acreage 
and not paying more to the taxpayers. That is why they want to be 
grazing these lands without the oversight of departments which decide 
whether or not they are doing something that could harm the lands 
permanently.
  So there is a real difference in philosophy between the Democratic 
side of the aisle and the Republican side of the aisle. And rider after 
rider, whether they talk about mining or logging or grazing or drilling 
for oil, comes down to this basic same debate.
  The amendment of the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, really calls 
in question the idea of how much oil companies should pay if they are 
going to drill for oil on public lands and which they turn around and 
sell at a profit.
  Frankly, I have no objection if the drilling for that oil does not 
create an environmental hazard or environmental problem. These 
companies should be allowed to bid and to responsibly drill for oil. It 
is good for America's energy needs. It creates jobs in the area. It is 
something with which I do not have a problem.
  The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, and I come to this Chamber 
to oppose an amendment being offered by the Senator from Texas. The 
amendment says this: The Department of the Interior, which is to 
establish the amount of money, the royalty, paid by the oil companies 
to drill on public lands, will be prohibited, by the Hutchison 
amendment, from revising that royalty to reflect the cost and value of 
the oil that is drilled.
  I believe this is the fourth time we have gone through this where 
they have stopped the Department of the Interior from revising upwards 
the amount of money taxpayers receive in royalties for drilling oil on 
public lands, despite the fact the law clearly says: Yes, owner of the 
oil company, you can use public land, but you owe the taxpayers 
something; pay the taxpayers for profit you are taking out of their 
land.
  Yet the Hutchison amendment says: No, we do not want to revise the 
royalty schedule; we do not want to make certain that the taxpayers 
receive fair compensation and the oil companies pay what they are 
required to pay under the law.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am so pleased the Senator is taking us back to the 
basics of this amendment which, as he pointed out, has essentially been 
offered to the Interior appropriations bill on three previous occasions 
in the committee on which he serves, the Appropriations Committee. We 
have tried to fight it in that committee only to be outvoted basically 
on a party-line vote.
  This is the first time, I know my friend is aware, we have had a vote 
on this in the Senate. I underscore and ask a question of my friend.
  My friend points out there is a problem with some of the oil 
companies, that they are not paying their fair share of royalties, and 
the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, wants to make sure 
everyone pays their fair share.
  Is my colleague aware that 95 percent of the oil companies are doing 
the right thing? I want to make sure he understands the problem lies 
with 5 percent of the oil companies that are ripping off the people. I 
hope he responds to that, and I have an additional question.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from California, this chart 
demonstrates what she has already stated. The percentage of companies 
affected by this rule is only 5 percent, 68 percent of the Federal 
production; 95 percent of the oil companies, particularly the small and 
independent companies, are not affected by this debate. We are talking 
about the big boys. We are talking about the big oil companies and 
whether they are going to use our Federal public lands to make a profit 
and pay the taxpayers a fair share of their profit back to our 
Treasury.
  When I heard the debate on the floor that I heard earlier suggesting 
that if these big oil companies have to pay their fair share of 
royalties, the price of a gallon of gasoline is going to go up at the 
pump, it is almost laughable. We are talking about such a small amount 
of money in terms of these multimillion-dollar oil companies but a 
significant amount of money which would come back to Federal taxpayers 
and to the States that are affected for very important purposes.

[[Page 22324]]

  The Senator from California is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I know he gets this completely. I also 
want to make sure he knows and that he puts into his remarks the fact 
that as a result of these three prior riders the Senator from Texas, 
Mrs. Hutchison, has put on these bills, we have already lost to the 
Federal Treasury $88 million. Is my friend aware of it? And is my 
friend aware what this particular amendment will do to add to that $88 
million? I see he has a terrific chart which explains it all. I yield 
to him for an answer.
  Mr. DURBIN. Just by coincidence, I happen to have a chart which 
illustrates this because this is a point we made during the course of 
the debate. The cost of this amendment, offered by Senator Hutchison, 
to the taxpayers of America is $66 million. The amount of money the 
taxpayers have lost to date is $88 million.
  With both amendments, if this amendment prevails today, America's 
taxpayers will lose $154 million which these oil companies were 
required to pay for the purpose of drilling oil on public land, oil 
which, of course, has generated great profits for them and their 
companies.
  This observation, that these companies have not paid their fair share 
for the royalties, has been backed up by lawsuits. States which receive 
the benefits of some of these royalty dollars have turned around and 
sued these oil companies and said they are not paying what they are 
required to pay under the law. In State after State, we have seen the 
oil companies basically concede, yes, we are underpaying the royalties 
we owe taxpayers.
  Take a look at these recent oil undervaluation settlements. State by 
State: Alaska, $3.7 billion; Louisiana, $400 million; California, $345 
million; Texas, $30 million. In all, we have collected $5 billion these 
oil companies have underpaid, their statutory obligation to pay 
royalties on this land.
  For the proponents of this amendment to argue that it is 
fundamentally unfair to require private oil companies to pay these 
royalties and that these formulas for payment are unfair is to ignore 
the reality that time and time again, when the oil companies have been 
challenged, they have been found guilty of having cheated the taxpayers 
out of the fair share of money they were supposed to pay.
  The Hutchison amendment says we will not change this formula; we will 
not update it; we will not hold these oil companies accountable. We 
will say to the Department of the Interior: Walk away from it; let the 
oil companies make the profit they want; do not let the taxpayers 
receive the fair compensation to which they are entitled.
  A lot of this money, incidentally, that goes to States is used for 
purposes which are absolutely essential. One of them is education. What 
is $66 million worth in terms of education? That is how much this 
amendment will cost the Federal Treasury and how much it will leave in 
the hands of the oil companies. What can one do with $66 million?
  By Federal standards, people say: Don't you people deal in billions? 
What does $66 million mean?
  With $66 million, you can hire 1,000 teachers. You can put 44,000 new 
computers in classrooms. You can buy textbooks for 1.2 million 
students. You can provide 53 million hot lunches for schoolchildren.
  Mr. President, $66 million may be small change by some Senators' 
standards, but when it comes to running schools and providing good 
education, it turns out to be a very important part of the component of 
meeting our obligation.
  Also, this has been an issue which has received a lot of attention. 
In fact, one of the articles which I think is extraordinary came from a 
publication which I rarely would run into, but it is Platt's Oilgram 
News. I cannot say as I have ever read it or subscribed to it.
  On Thursday, July 22, 1999, a retired employee from ARCO, one of the 
major oil companies involved in this debate, said that his company 
deliberately underpaid the oil royalties to the Federal Government. 
This was not a miscalculation. This was not an accidental occurrence. A 
calculated decision was made by the oil company to shortchange 
America's taxpayers by refusing to pay the royalties required by law 
because they felt that some day they may be sued as a result of that 
decision and they would just as soon hold on to the money, declare it 
as profit, make interest on it, and run a risk they would have a 
lawsuit and a day of reckoning sometime in the future.
  This gentleman, Mr. Anderson, is quoted at length in the article:

       I was an ARCO employee, he said. Some of the issues being 
     discussed were still being litigated. My plan was to get to 
     retirement. We had seen numerous occasions, the nail that 
     stood up getting beat down.
       . . . The senior executives of ARCO had the judgment that 
     they would take the money, accrue for the day of judgment, 
     and that's what we did. I would not have been there in any 
     capacity had I continued to exercise the right they had given 
     me to dissent to this process during the discussion stage. 
     But once we made our decisions, ranks closed . . . I did not 
     get to be a manager and remain a manager being oblivious and 
     blind to signals.

  A calculated corporate decision to underpay the Federal Government: 
Leave the money in the bank and earn interest on it and wait to be 
sued.
  So the Hutchison amendment basically says: The Department of the 
Interior should ignore this, ignore the fact that oil companies are 
basically cheating the taxpayers out of the money to which they are 
entitled.
  Recently there was a lawsuit filed, which the Senator from California 
brought to my attention, that raised the question of this effort by the 
oil companies. They came up, in that lawsuit, with what they call the 
seven schemes by which these oil companies were basically cheating 
America's taxpayers:
  No. 1, misrepresenting the actual value received for oil;
  No. 2, buying and selling crude oil at values less than what would 
have been received in an arm's length transaction;
  No. 3, selling oil to their affiliates to mask the true value;
  No. 4, claiming an artificially low value for oil refined by the 
company itself;
  No. 5, falsely classifying high-valued sweet oil as lower-priced sour 
crude oil;
  No. 6, paying royalties on the basis of lower-valued oil, then 
commingling it with higher-valued and selling it as high-quality oil;
  No. 7, claiming payment of certain fees on commingled oil when such 
fees were never paid.
  Those are schemes that have been used by these oil companies to avoid 
paying the royalty they are required to pay under law.
  They want to drill on public lands. They want to make a profit. They 
do not want to pay back to America the cost we have incurred in 
allowing them to take this oil from the land. They have been caught 
time and time again with their hands in the cookie jar.
  The Hutchison amendment says: We are not going to pursue these oil 
companies any further. We are going to say to the Department of the 
Interior: You cannot enforce the law. You cannot enforce the 
requirement that these oil companies pay their fair share in royalties.
  There are many special interests at work on Capitol Hill. I would be 
the first to admit it, having served here for 17 years. This is one of 
the more blatant examples I have seen, where companies have basically 
come in and said: We want to be exempt from the law.
  The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, has fought a valiant fight 
to bring this issue to public attention. Time after time, publications 
across America, which have taken a look at this issue, have reached the 
conclusion that the Senator from California is right and this amendment 
is wrong.
  In the USA Today--and this is from last year; same issue, same type 
of amendment--the editorial is entitled ``Time to clean up Big Oil's 
slick deal with Congress.'' Let me read just a few words here from the 
USA Today editorial of August 26, 1998:

       Imagine being able to compute your own rent payments and 
     grocery bills, giving yourself a 3% to 10% discount off the 
     market price. Over time, that would add up to really big 
     bucks. And imagine having the political

[[Page 22325]]

     clout to make sure nothing [ever] threatened to change that 
     cozy arrangement.
       According to government and private studies, that's the 
     sweet deal the oil industry is fighting to protect: the right 
     to extract crude oil from public land and pay the government 
     not the open market price but a lower ``posted price''--based 
     on private deals--

  The schemes I mentioned earlier--

     the oil companies can manipulate for their own benefit.

  They go on to talk about the fact that it is no secret that these oil 
companies are big players in Washington. They make contributions to 
Members of Congress. And, of course, when the time comes, they expect 
at least a day in court, if not some help, when their issues come to 
the floor. This is a classic illustration.
  It just strikes me as odd that companies that otherwise enjoy 
positive reputations are willing to fight so viciously to protect what 
has been unmasked as a scheme to defraud America's taxpayers.
  In the scheme of things, if this 5 percent of the major oil companies 
paid $66 million more a year to the Federal Treasury, can you believe 
that would affect their bottom line? I do not think the money is what 
is at stake here. I think what is at stake is the attitude, the 
attitude of these companies that we have no right as Members of the 
Senate to defy their scheme and to say that the American taxpayers 
deserve a fair shake, that the American taxpayers deserve better.
  They believe, as some do in this body, that these public lands are 
there as a disposable product to be used up, if necessary, and 
discarded, that future generations be damned. That is the philosophy 
they follow.
  That troubles me greatly because I know that Republicans and 
Democrats alike understand that the law should be followed, understand 
that private citizens and families and businesses are required to 
follow the law as much as anyone, and, frankly, that even though we 
have a good economy, getting away from the days of deep deficits, we 
still have the need for money in our Treasury for valuable purposes 
such as, for example, education.
  One of the things we will debate in the closing weeks of this session 
is whether or not this Senate, by the time we adjourn, will be able to 
point to anything we have accomplished in the field of education.
  When the session started, the leaders on the Republican side, who are 
in control of the House and the Senate, made important speeches about 
how critical education was in the priorities of this Congress. Yet I 
will tell you, quite honestly, if we held a gun to the head of any 
Member of Congress and said, I am going to pull the trigger unless you 
can tell me something this Congress has done to help American families 
improve education, I would have to tell them, fire away, because we 
have done nothing.
  This is an illustration, that we would walk away from $66 million, a 
portion of which goes back to the States for education, at a time when 
we realize there are critical priorities in education all across 
America. Our schools are becoming antiquated. They do not have the 
modern technology they need. We know more and more kids are on the 
horizon. They are going to be showing up and enrolling in schools. So 
the demands are there for education to be improved in every State, and 
certainly in Federal programs.
  Why the Hutchison amendment would want to take away what the Federal 
Treasury is entitled to receive for the oil companies drilling on 
public lands, taking that money away, shortchanging education, is 
beyond me. It is beyond me.
  Certainly we can have a spirited debate about whether we want to 
increase taxes for given purposes. We have had that debate. I know it 
is one that is contentious. But this isn't about a new tax; this is 
about existing law that requires these oil companies to pay their tax, 
their royalty, for drilling oil. For some reason, certainly a large 
number of the Members of the Senate believe these oil companies should 
be able to walk away scot-free and not accept this obligation.
  The Los Angeles Times editorial of July 20, 1999, characterized this 
effort, this amendment, the Hutchison amendment, and this scheme as 
``The Great American Oil Rip-Off.'' I quote the first paragraph:

       America's big oil companies have been ripping off federal 
     and state governments for decades by underpaying royalties 
     for oil drilled on public lands. The Interior Department 
     tried to stop the practice with new rules, but Congress has 
     succeeded in blocking their implementation--

  With this amendment that is before the Senate today--

     and will again if a Senate bill calling for a moratorium on 
     the new rules, proposed by Senators Hutchison and Pete 
     Domenici of New Mexico and scheduled for a floor vote . . . 
     is enacted.

  Let me read this paragraph:

       Not since the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s has the 
     stench of oil money reeked as strongly in Washington as it is 
     in this case.

  This amendment, frankly, brought to the floor may enjoy the support 
of a majority of Members and I am sure will enjoy the plaudits and 
praise of the oil companies benefited by it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield on that point?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to.
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend hits again on an issue that I think we should 
explore because under the rules of the Senate we have up to 30 hours 
for debate on this Hutchison amendment. I do not know if it will take 
30 hours, but it will take some time because it is important that the 
light of day shine on this.
  My friend from Illinois has hit on a really important point that, in 
essence, the scandal is the nature of this. I wonder if my friend could 
comment on the perception people in this country have that if you are 
big, if you are powerful, if you give millions of dollars in 
contributions, you can get your way in something as obvious as this.
  Why do I say obvious? The New York Times did a story on this just 2 
days ago.
  I thought the opening lines were very important. I wonder if my 
friend read them. I think he did. It said:

       Oil companies drilling on Federal land have been accused of 
     habitually underpaying royalties they owe the government. 
     Challenged in court, they have settled lawsuits, agreeing to 
     pay $5 billion. The Interior Department wants to rectify the 
     situation by making the companies pay royalties based on the 
     market price of oil, instead of a lower price set by the oil 
     companies.

  The author asks:

       A simple issue? Not in the United States Senate.

  We have a simple, straightforward issue. If the Senator or I or any 
of the people watching this debate around the country didn't pay their 
fair share of taxes, believe me, they would have a knock on their door 
from the IRS. Here they have a knock on the door from the Senate. They 
say: It's OK; we will defend it.
  I ask my friend whether he feels the power of this special interest 
is playing a role in this? Not just to pick on them--I know my friend 
has taken on the tobacco companies time and time again--but I want my 
friend to comment on the perception of people in this country that this 
Senate and this Congress does the bidding of the special interests over 
the bidding of the people we are supposed to fight for and represent. 
He can tie it into any issue he wants, but I think it is an important 
part of this debate.
  Mr. DURBIN. I think the point of the Senator from California is well 
taken: We do demand of families and businesses that they pay their fair 
share of taxes. If they don't, they are held accountable. What we want 
to create with the Hutchison amendment is an exception for oil 
companies; to say to some of the most profitable companies in America 
that they don't have to pay their fair share as required by law. That 
is what the Hutchison amendment does.
  It says the Department of the Interior cannot review the amount of 
money being paid in royalties by these oil companies and stop them from 
even considering implementing and enforcing the law. We know, as the 
Senator from California has indicated, that in the past, time and 
again, these companies have underpaid their required royalties to the 
Federal Government and to the States.
  We have a letter, which was addressed to the Senator from California,

[[Page 22326]]

from the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt. He writes, on 
September 8, 1999:

       I am writing to call on you and your colleagues to reject 
     from the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Bill a Senate amendment extending the 
     moratorium prohibiting the Department of the Interior from 
     issuing a final rulemaking on the royalty valuation of crude 
     oil until October 1st, 2000. A similar letter has been sent 
     to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
       Prior to a series of congressionally-imposed moratoria, the 
     Department was prepared to publish a final rule on oil 
     valuation on June 1, 1998. On March 4, 1999, I announced that 
     the Department would reopen the comment period for the 
     federal oil valuation rule. On March 12, 1999, we formally 
     reopened the comment period and held a series of public 
     workshops to discuss the rule. We believe that the process 
     set in motion will assure full and open consideration of all 
     new ideas for resolving the concerns that have been raised 
     and will lead to a solution that best meets the interests of 
     the American public.
       Currently, we are reviewing the information gathered at the 
     workshops and are confident that we will be able to address 
     the outstanding issues raised by our stakeholders. The 
     moratorium [as suggested by the Hutchison amendment] would 
     simply delay our ability to implement a final rule until 
     October 1, 2000, although we may have resolved these key 
     issues well before then. This unnecessary delay will result 
     in losses to the Federal Treasury, States, and Indians of an 
     amount of up to $5.65 million per month.
       We urge you to defeat any proposal to extend the moratorium 
     prohibiting the Department from issuing a final rule during 
     Fiscal Year 2000.
       Sincerely, Bruce Babbitt [Secretary of the Interior]

  Five point six million a month, owed to the Federal Treasury, owed to 
the taxpayers for the use of public lands for private profit, that will 
not be paid if the Hutchison amendment passes.
  As I look across the aisle, I see a chart the Senator from Texas has 
used repeatedly to explain how complicated this is to come up with this 
valuation. I haven't seen it in detail. I don't question the veracity 
of the Senator's statements about this process.
  Let me suggest to my colleagues, when we are dealing with 
conglomerate oil companies, multinational, with large legal 
departments, large engineering departments, arguing over the value of 
oil, trust me, it is not something that is done over lunch, where they 
write a figure on a napkin and agree to it. You have to bring in all of 
the information, verify it, subject it to public comment, and then 
establish the right royalty to be paid by the oil companies.
  I think it might be interesting to see a chart of how much the oil 
companies are paying to bring this amendment to the floor and pass it, 
all of their corporate and legal departments and government departments 
that are at work to try to save them over $5 million a month at the 
expense of the Federal taxpayers.
  The other day, I was on an airplane flying to Washington, which is a 
big part of my life over the last 17 years. I sat on a plane next to a 
gentleman from Colorado who worked for MCI WorldCom. He quickly wanted 
to talk about politics, which is always a dangerous topic when one is 
captured on an airplane. He allowed as to how he was a libertarian and 
believed there was entirely too much government around and, frankly, 
that is the way he voted.
  I said: Let me tell you about an issue. Let me describe to you 
because you live in Colorado--a beautiful State that has a lot of 
public lands--this issue about whether or not oil companies should be 
able to come on public land, drill on that land, take the oil out, sell 
it for a profit, and pay a royalty for that purpose.
  He said: I don't have any problem with that; that's only fair. If 
they are going to use the public lands that they don't own, they ought 
to pay something for them.
  I said: Well, that is what the debate is all about.
  The Hutchison amendment stops the Federal Government from collecting 
the royalty these companies owe under the law. Whether you are a 
conservative, a libertarian, independent, liberal, this is just simple 
justice. It is fairness, as to whether or not these companies are going 
to get such a break from the Senate, that we are basically wrapping up 
in a beautiful little package with a nice big bow on top, 5.6 million 
bucks a month to these oil companies.
  They hold tag days in the city of Chicago, which I am privileged to 
represent, for a lot of people who are homeless, people who need food 
and clothing, folks who need a break in life. These tag days give you 
little things to put in your lapel to show that you helped.
  They are never going to have a tag day for a major oil company. These 
companies are doing OK. Frankly, for us to give them an additional 
subsidy of $5.6 million a month is scandalous; that at this time in our 
history, when we know this money could be so well spent for education, 
for health care, for things every American expects us to respond to, we 
would literally turn our backs on $5.6 million a month, money that 
these oil companies have conceded in lawsuits they underpaid the 
Federal Government.
  That is what this amendment is all about. It is a real test. The oil 
companies, at the end of this debate, will get the vote. Senators will 
be counted on: On one side, those who believe the oil companies need to 
be treated a little more gingerly, a little more lightly, they should 
not be required to make the payments they are required to make under 
law; on the other side, those of us who believe the public lands should 
be protected and those who use them should make fair compensation for 
the use of those lands.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague very much, the 
Senator from Illinois, for his comments. He has proven, once again, a 
very important point around here; that is, that he speaks for the 
people, all the people.
  I think the primary issue in this amendment is, for whom do we stand 
up and fight? The oil companies, the tobacco companies, the special 
interests, they are strong. I know Senator Feingold, who has spoken 
before, has been very eloquent on the point of the power of the special 
interests in this country. They have the ability to really make things 
come out the way they want. On the other hand, this is supposed to be a 
government of, by, and for the people, which sometimes gets shut out. 
There isn't an occasion I can recall in all the years I have served 
with my dear friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin, not an occasion when 
he didn't stand on the side of what was right. That is a pretty strong 
statement. But I know when he gets up and speaks against the Hutchison 
amendment, it is because he is as outraged as I am that the people are 
being forgotten by the Senator from Texas, and the very powerful are 
being represented.
  Why did I take so much of the Senate's time on this? Because I feel 
so deeply that when you see people being hurt, you have to stand up on 
their side. Now, a newspaper in California said, well, it is only 
$600,000 a year to California. First of all, that is incorrect. It is 
$600,000 a year as their share of the royalties; but when more money 
gets put into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the State of 
California gets back 10 percent of that. So it is really millions of 
dollars.
  Mr. President, I would like to ask my friend, Senator Feingold, at 
approximately what time he would like to be heard on this.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Right now.
  Mrs. BOXER. Since my friend from Wisconsin is here, I will retain the 
remainder of my time and yield for him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her tremendous 
determination and leadership on this issue. I have watched this effort 
from the beginning, and her enthusiasm and determination is really 
making a difference. I am extremely impressed with it.
  My purpose is to rise again in opposition to the Hutchison amendment. 
Earlier in the debate on this amendment, I engaged in a colloquy with 
the Senator from California about the relationship

[[Page 22327]]

between campaign contributions and the continued reappearance of this 
amendment. I believe this is the fourth time similar provisions have 
been offered or contained in the Interior appropriations bill, just 
since May of 1998.
  I will return in a minute to the issue of campaign contributions. 
First, I want to share a few observations that highlight the overall 
importance of the issue we are discussing. I ask unanimous consent that 
an article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on September 10, 
1999, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10, 1999]

 Chevron to Pay About $95 Million to End Claim It Shortchanged U.S. on 
                               Royalties

                       (By A Llexei Barrionuevo)

       Chevron Corp. has agreed in principle to pay about $95 
     million to resolve civil allegations that it shortchanged the 
     U.S. on royalty payments, according to people close to the 
     negotiations.
       The agreement would resolve allegations made in a 1996 
     lawsuit filed in federal court in Lufkin, Texas, by two 
     whistleblowers under the federal False Claims Act. The suit, 
     originally filed against 18 large oil companies, alleges that 
     the companies knowingly undervalued oil extracted from 
     federal and Native American lands from 1988 on to reduce the 
     royalties they owed.
       The case is scheduled to go to trial in March, but several 
     companies are moving to resolve the issues well before then. 
     Until recently, only Mobile Corp., based in Fairfax, Va., had 
     addressed the charges; it agreed to pay $45 million in a 
     settlement in August 1998.
       Then, last week, Occidental Petroleum Corp. in Los Angeles 
     agreed to pay $7.3 million to settle the charges.
       According to people close to the talks, BP Amoco PLC and 
     Conoco Inc. also have reached agreements in principal to 
     settle for about $30 million apiece. A document expected to 
     be filed today in federal court in Lufkin will ask the court 
     to cease discovery against Chevron, Conoco and BP Amoco on 
     the basis that the government has reached preliminary 
     agreements with the companies.
       The people close to the talks said Chevron and the Justice 
     Department must agree on the language of a final agreement, 
     which is expected in the next few weeks. Chevron is based in 
     San Francisco.
       Chevron, Conoco and BP Amoco all confirmed they are 
     negotiating with the government, but they wouldn't elaborate. 
     Chevron spokeswoman Dawn Soper said the company hasn't yet 
     signed an agreement, and ``until we have a settlement 
     agreement signed, we are not going to comment on what we may 
     have offered or are offering.'' BP Amoco said it has an 
     ``understanding in principal'' to settle.
       A spokesman for the U.S. Minerals Management Service said 
     discussions are continuing with all three companies, but it 
     wouldn't confirm that any settlements had been reached. The 
     companies' willingness to reach settlements were earlier 
     reported by an industry publication, Petroleum Argus.
       Since 1996, the Interior Department, in separate actions, 
     has billed the oil companies for more than $400 million in 
     alleged underpayment of federal royalties stretching back two 
     decades.
       In the Lufkin lawsuit, the whistleblowers allege that the 
     companies paid royalties based on a ``posted'' wellhead price 
     rather than the fair-market value. The Justice Department 
     intervened in the case in March 1998 against four companies: 
     Amoco Corp., Burlington Resources Inc., Conoco and Shell Oil 
     Co., a unit of Royal Dutch/Shell Group. The government later 
     intervened against Occidental Petroleum, Texaco Inc. and 
     Unocal Corp. In the suit, the government is seeking about $5 
     billion from all the companies combined, which includes 
     actual damages trebled, plus civil penalties.
       Attorneys involved in the suit say more companies are close 
     to settling. Still, Exxon Corp., which prevailed in a 14-
     year-old royalties case in California recently, hasn't joined 
     the negotiations. Federal regulators argue that the Lufkin 
     case differs from the California case, because the federal 
     royalty agreements were more explicit.
       Bob Davis, spokesman for Exxon USA, declined to comment on 
     the oil giant's litigation strategy or to say whether the 
     company would negotiate in the case. However, he added, ``in 
     these posted-price issues, it is the company's position that 
     we post our prices fairly and properly, and in complete 
     accordance with the terms of the contract. That applies 
     whether it be the city, state or federal land.''
       The case was originally filed by two former Atlantic 
     Richfield Co. marketing executives, J. Benjamin Johnson Jr. 
     and John M. Martineck. They stand to receive 15% to 25% of 
     settlements paid in cases where the Justice Department 
     intervenes, or 25% to 30% where the government doesn't 
     intervene.
       Efforts by the Interior Department to institute a rule 
     change that would allow the government to collect royalties 
     based on fair-market prices rather than a posted price remain 
     mired in politics. The department estimates the rule change 
     would require oil companies to pay $66.1 million a year in 
     additional royalty payments.
       On Wednesday, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R., Texas), 
     proposed an amendment to the appropriations bill that would 
     keep the rule change off the books for another year. In 
     defense of the move, she said that while larger oil companies 
     may be able to absorb the higher royalties, the rule changes 
     will hit small producers ``at a time when they are still 
     reeling from the historically low oil prices we have seen 
     lately.'' It was the fourth time since May 1988 that Sen. 
     Hutchison has sought to delay the rule change.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, since we have been engaged in debate on 
the Interior bill, four major oil companies have reached tentative 
agreements with U.S. prosecutors who accused them of cooperating in 
schemes to shortchange the Government through their royalty payments by 
millions of dollars. A tentative settlement, which was filed in Federal 
court in Lufkin, TX, involved about $185 million in payments and would 
end a case that alleged that companies underpaid royalties by 
undervaluating oil extracted from Federal and American Indian lands.
  Though the settlement has not yet been finalized, it is a very 
serious matter. Chevron USA, Inc.; BP American Inc.; Amoco Oil Co.; and 
Conoco, Inc.; agreed in principle to settle for $95 million, $32 
million, $32 million, and $26 million, respectively. The Wall Street 
Journal reported that a 1996 lawsuit by two former Atlantic Richfield 
employees alleges that 18 companies, their affiliates and subsidiaries, 
knowingly defrauded the Government on royalties derived from the 
production of crude oil from land spanning more than 27 million acres 
in 21 States.
  The Justice Department entered the case against Conoco; Amoco; 
Burlington Resources; the Shell Oil Company; Occidental Petroleum; 
Texaco, Inc.; and the Unocal Corporation, which resulted in the recent 
settlements. The Government is seeking triple damages of about $5 
billion from all the companies. The Interior Department has billed the 
oil companies more than $400 million for the alleged underpayment of 
Federal royalties, stretching back two decades.
  The Wall Street Journal article I referred to, reports that these 
recent settlements aren't even the first of their kind. Several 
companies have been negotiating settlements. The Mobil Corporation 
agreed last year to pay $45 million, and Occidental Petroleum 
Corporation agreed in early September to pay $7.3 million.
  I think this is a very troubling trend as these lawsuits are settled. 
I am very concerned that Congress is abdicating its responsibility. 
Unintentionally or not, Congress is making it possible for this issue 
to continue to go unaddressed because the royalty underpayment 
situation is the issue that this rulemaking we are debating seeks to 
correct.
  The proponents of this amendment have stated their concerns that 
regulators are straying onto Congress' turf by amending the 
regulations. Proponents of this amendment say they want Congress to act 
on this matter; otherwise, the increase in royalties would amount to a 
type of ``taxation without representation.''
  I have to respectfully disagree with that argument. It ignores the 
fact that our Government agencies regularly update their regulations 
and they are authorized to do so by Congress. We don't require Congress 
to act every single time a regulation needs to be changed. We would 
never be able to get to it.
  For example, Congress enacted the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act. That law is intended to provide for orderly leasing of these 
lands, while affording protection for the environment and ensuring that 
the Federal Government receive fair market value for both lands leased 
and the production that might result. The Outer Continental Shelf 
Program is carried out by the Minerals Management Service of the 
Department of the Interior. Thus, Congress delegated the power to set 
royalties to MMS.

[[Page 22328]]

  In addition to ignoring the fact that Congress passed laws which give 
the MMS the ability to set royalties, this argument that has been made 
rings hollow when you consider that Congress is not acting to prevent 
the underpayment of royalties with this amendment. What it is doing is 
preventing the Interior Department from doing anything about it at all.
  So this raises the question: Why is Congress doing nothing about this 
problem? I think, certainly, the public will want to know why. The 
alleged underpayments involve more than 6,000 onshore and offshore 
leases in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, California, Alabama, Alaska, 
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, 
Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, 
Utah, and Wyoming.
  So this is not just a coastal States problem, or even just a Western 
problem. It affects a broad number of States, and it deserves attention 
as a national problem, the kind of attention the Senator from 
California has brought to it.
  I have no doubt that one of the factors contributing to Congress' 
inaction on this issue of great importance to American taxpayers is the 
role of campaign contributions in the political process. So I want to 
review the figures I briefly presented when I ``Called the Bankroll'' 
last time I joined the Senator from California on the floor. I call the 
bankroll from time to time in this Chamber to remind my colleagues and 
the public about the undeniable, but sometimes hidden, role that money 
plays in the decisions we make.
  During the 1997-1998 election cycle, the very large oil companies 
that will benefit from this amendment gave the following political 
donations to the parties and to Federal candidates:
  Exxon gave more than $230,000 in soft money and more than $480,000 in 
PAC money; Chevron gave more than $425,000 in soft money and more than 
$330,000 in PAC money; Atlantic Richfield gave more than $525,000 in 
soft money and $150,000 in PAC money; BP Oil and Amoco, two oil 
companies that have merged into the newly formed petroleum giant, BP 
Amoco, gave a combined total of more than $480,000 in soft money and 
$295,000 in PAC money.
  So if you put that together, that is more than $2.9 million just from 
those four corporations in the span of only 2 years. They want the 
Hutchison amendment to be part of the Interior appropriations bill. As 
powerful political donors, I am afraid they are likely to get their 
way.
  You will notice that all of these companies except for Exxon gave 
more to the political parties in soft money than their PACs gave to 
individual candidates. So, remember, and this is a key thing about soft 
money, which I don't think everybody in the country realizes; it took 
me a while to get it. Soft money comes right out of the corporate 
treasury, right out of the treasury. This isn't money where you form a 
PAC and you get employees to contribute to it; it comes straight out of 
the corporate treasury.
  I am happy to yield without yielding my right to the floor. I ask 
unanimous consent that I can yield briefly to the Senator from North 
Dakota so he can make a request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXII, paragraph 2, I 
yield my 1 hour to the minority leader, Senator Daschle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thank you. Let me get back to this 
point.
  Of the four companies I mentioned, only one of the four--that being 
Exxon--didn't give more soft money than they did PAC money. The point I 
am trying to make is a very important point about what is going on with 
these campaign contributions. This money came straight out of corporate 
treasuries.
  I would have thought a few years ago that these kinds of donations 
were illegal. They are supposed to be essentially illegal under our 
Federal elections law.
  The Tillman Act passed way back in 1907 in the Senate and in the 
Congress prohibited corporations from making campaign contributions. 
That statute, which was codified in title 2 of the United States Code, 
at section 441(b), reads as follows:

       It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation 
     organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a 
     contribution or expenditure in connection with any election 
     to political office . . . or for any candidate, political 
     committee or other person knowingly to accept or receive any 
     contribution received by this section.

  That sounds pretty simple and straightforward. Yet unfortunately, in 
1978, the Federal Election Commission made a ruling that opened up this 
soft money loophole and allowed the political parties to begin 
accepting unlimited contributions of soft money from corporations such 
as Exxon, Chevron, and Atlantic Richfield to pay for party-building 
activities and things such as get-out-the-vote campaigns and voter 
registration. That is what it was supposed to be for.
  Let me remind my colleagues that we all believed, based on the 
Tillman Act, that contributions----
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the subject 
matter is not germane.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I certainly dispute that. I believe this 
is entirely relevant. I am talking about corporations and interests 
that are very much behind this matter. I would certainly suggest that 
it is appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would remind the Senator that under 
the cloture, speeches must be relevant to the issue at hand.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I believe this presentation is entirely 
relevant to this issue. I am going through the way in which these 
corporations can technically legally provide this kind of help to this 
cause of trying to make this change. That is merely the background I am 
giving at this point.
  So let me return to the present. Soft money has grown exponentially 
since those early days when corporate contributions were just going to 
give the parties a little breathing room to cover party-building 
activities, not campaigns. In the last Presidential campaign, in 1996, 
the parties raised $262 million in soft money, three times as much as 
in the 1992 election cycle. The experts project we will see perhaps as 
much as $500 million or even $600 million in this next election, and 
about 65 percent of the money is coming from corporate treasuries.
  So as we look at an issue, such as Senator Boxer's concern with the 
Hutchison amendment, we have to realize that what is before us is not 
simply an amendment. It is an amendment supported by interests that 
have been involved in an immense infusion of corporate cash that, 
unfortunately, is totally legal, even though I certainly don't think it 
should be. We wonder why the American people are skeptical of what we 
are doing. We have heard the horror stories again and again. Parties 
have special clubs for big givers and offer to the donors exclusive 
meetings and weekend retreats with office holders. And it is totally 
legal.
  In other cases, in other bills, so we know this isn't an isolated 
incident, the tobacco companies have funneled nearly $17 million in 
soft money to the national political parties.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order again, that 
campaign finance is not the issue we are talking on, and I raise a 
point of order on it.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I may be heard in response.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I believe it is clear that what I am 
saying is not simply in the context of a debate on campaign finance 
reform, and that the Members of the Senate and the American people 
should hear and understand the kind of money that is behind legislation 
on the floor of the Senate.
  I think it is relevant to this debate. I think it is relevant to the 
debate on the subject matter involved. I have in the past on a number 
of occasions taken the opportunity to raise this issue. I have spoken 
about campaign money in connection with 9 or 10 other

[[Page 22329]]

bills, without objection from anyone, to point out the money that is 
involved in those bills. As you know, my presentation here has not been 
exclusively on the topic of campaign money. I have talked about the 
merits as well. I believe both are relevant, and I certainly would 
dispute the notion that this is in any way appropriate for a point of 
order.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think it is totally inappropriate. You 
can talk about the campaign finance issue on any issue. On this issue, 
we had a vote. This issue was designed to proceed for 30 hours. This 
issue was not to be done on campaign finance. I continue to raise a 
point of order, and will continue to raise a point of order.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I be heard on this point of order? I 
ask unanimous consent that I may be heard on this point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. THOMAS. I object. I at least would like to have some limit as to 
the amount of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For how long does the Senator wish to speak?
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to make a point in response, and I can do it, and 
raise a question for the Senator from Wisconsin, because he still 
controls the time.
  Mr. THOMAS. I have no objection.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may yield for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. I just got unanimous consent to speak. So I would take 
that, and I thank my friend.
  I want to make a point in support of Senator Feingold's amendment to 
campaign contributions, but I want to do it in a way that I think is 
very objective.
  If you look at the New York Times article--he should make sure he 
looks at this New York Times article as well--I say to all of my 
friends, the title of this article is ``Battle Waged in the Senate Over 
Oil Royalties by Oil Firms.'' The essence of the article goes to the 
heart of what my friend is saying. It goes to the heart of the issue of 
campaign contributions.
  So I surely believe the Senator from Wisconsin is in full order to 
connect this amendment to the number of contributions that oil 
companies give, and I think his comments are on point and in order.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to object. I would like to 
take issue, as respectfully as I can, with my colleague from 
California, who came earlier to this floor. I don't have the quote, but 
I remember.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the order?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. The order is----
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, could I ask what the order is in speaking? 
I thought the time belonged to the Senator from Wisconsin, and that it 
was his chance to continue his remarks.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I am objecting to his remarks.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator from Wisconsin got time to make a speech when 
he has the floor, and he has an hour's worth of time. I would ask for a 
ruling as to who asked for time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from California has 
expired.
  Mr. THOMAS. We just completed this question on germaneness. If you 
would like me to read the ruling, I would be happy to do that.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is fine with us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. On germaneness of debate, if the Senate is proceeding 
under cloture, debate must be germane. ``Germane'' means you have to be 
on the subject. It doesn't mean you can sway off the subject to some 
irrelevant subject. This says it must be germane, and I again raise a 
point of order.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. The only way it would be germane is if the Senator from 
Wisconsin----
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, who has the time?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. On giving contributions----
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, who has the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators will suspend.
  There are precedents of the Senate that permit nongermane debate even 
under cloture, notwithstanding the precedent cited by the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  The Senator from Wisconsin has the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate having the floor returned. 
I appreciate the ruling of the Chair.
  Let me say that any attempt to gag the discussion on the floor of the 
Senate about the impact of soft money on this place is something I will 
fight tooth and nail with my colleagues on, and I was prepared, if 
necessary, had the Chair ruled against me to appeal. But I am grateful 
for the ruling and the precedents.
  There is a notion that somehow saying the oil companies have 
contributed money means we are accusing somebody of something illegal, 
or something that can't be done. But that isn't a necessary conclusion. 
Contributions can be given innocently, but if the impact is that the 
process is greatly affected and the judgment is affected by the power 
of that money, I think it is relevant to this debate.
  That is my concern about soft money. It is not so much the 
contributions given to individual Senators. Individual Members can't 
take soft money. It is this new phenomenon of the very large soft money 
contributions being given to political parties that I think has changed 
this place in a way that is extremely troubling and has allowed some 
amendments such as the one before the Senate today to get the kind of 
credibility I don't think they would have had without the power of soft 
money.
  We have heard the horror stories again and again. Parties have 
special clubs for big givers and offer exclusive meetings and weekend 
retreats with officeholders to the donors. It is totally legal. In 
response to the Senator from Louisiana, I can see it is legal. I am not 
suggesting that these parties or industries are involved in illegal 
activity; it is legal, but it should be illegal. It is distorting to 
the process.
  The tobacco companies have funneled nearly $17 million in soft money 
to the national parties in the last decade, $4.4 million in 1997 alone, 
when the whole issue of congressional action on the tobacco settlement 
was very much alive, and it is totally legal. In 1996, the gambling 
industry gave nearly $4 million in soft money to the two major 
political parties at the same time that Congress was creating a new 
national commission on gambling but with limited subpoena powers. It is 
totally legal.
  There are some in this body, despite what the Thompson investigation 
uncovered a few years ago and what news stories show on almost a daily 
basis, who don't see or won't acknowledge the corrupting influence of 
these unlimited soft money contributions which again are now totally 
legal.
  I remember a history lesson that one of our colleagues, the junior 
Senator from Utah, gave during a debate on campaign finance reform a 
few years ago that was intended to convince Members there was nothing 
wrong at all with enormous campaign contributions. He recounted the 
very frequently told story of how Senator Eugene McCarthy's 
Presidential campaign in 1968 was jump-started by some very large 
contributions by some very wealthy individuals.
  He also noted that Steve Forbes was apparently prepared to make 
similar contributions to support Jack Kemp for a run for the Presidency 
in 1996 but was prohibited from doing so by the Federal elections law 
and decided to run his own campaign, a decision from which we might 
infer that money is more important than the candidate.
  He also recounted the story of Mr. Arthur Hyatt, a wealthy 
businessman who gave large soft money contributions to the Democratic 
Party in 1996 but decided after the election not to give soft money to 
the parties anymore but instead to fund an advocacy group that is 
promoting public financing of elections.

[[Page 22330]]

  The point of the examples was to try to argue that wealthy donors are 
motivated by ideology and to benefit the public as they see it, rather 
than the desire to gain access and influence with policymakers through 
their contributions. I suppose that could sometimes be the case.
  Of course, there are other examples, including the candid story of 
the well-known incident of Mr. Roger Tamraz who testified under oath to 
our Governmental Affairs Committee that he never even votes and the 
only reason he gave soft money to the DNC was to gain access to 
officials he thought could help him with his business. It is my strong 
suspicion that Mr. Tamraz' motives, if not his methods, are more 
typical of big contributors than are those of Steve Forbes or the 
millionaires who funded Eugene McCarthy's campaign.
  Mr. THOMAS. Regular order. I renew my objection that the debate is 
not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. While the Chair continues to research the 
question, the Chair is not prepared to rule at this time. It will 
continue to research the question on the point of order.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I don't think the Senator should be allowed to 
continue if there is a question that this violates Senate rules.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I don't think the Senator from Texas can 
rewrite the rules of the Senate. It is my understanding the Senator 
from Wisconsin has time. He has now been interrupted three or four 
times in what I consider to be a crucial presentation which gets to the 
heart of this amendment. I hope he can continue his remarks until the 
Chair has made a decision.
  Mr. THOMAS. The Senator from California does not make precedent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is wrong. I think it borders on a personal attack 
on Senators who I think are doing something they think is in the best 
interest of this Nation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am shocked at the efforts of my colleagues to gag one 
of their colleagues who is trying to talk about a reality in this 
country that has occurred with regard to these campaign contributions 
that affect what we are doing on this amendment. The notion that 
somehow I should stop speaking while the Chair reviews the precedents 
is absurd. A Senator should be allowed to speak as long as he is 
permitted under the rules to do so, and there has been no such ruling 
otherwise.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator------
  Mrs. BOXER. Regular order.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I believe I have the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I will not yield for a question at this point. I will 
later.
  Mr. President, I am not cynical about this. There is a reason I hold 
suspicions about the motives of soft money donors. The reason is, a 
solid majority of soft money contributions to our political parties, as 
I mentioned before, comes from corporate interests. It simply cannot be 
argued that those interests are acting out of a public spiritedness or 
ideological conviction. Corporations do not have an ideology; they have 
business interests. They have a bottom line to defend. They have 
learned over the years that making contributions to the major political 
parties in this country is a very good investment in their bottom line. 
Unfortunately, too often campaign money buys access and access often 
pays off at the bottom line.
  Corporate interests are special interests. Special interests have 
self-interested motives. They are concerned with profits, not only what 
is best for citizens or consumers or the country as a whole. They like 
to cast their arguments in terms of the public interest, and I am sure 
sometimes their beliefs are genuine. And they certainly will argue that 
if Congress follows their advice on legislation, the public will be 
better off. But in the end, it is their own businesses they most care 
of and not necessarily the broader public good.
  Indeed, the boards of directors and management of corporations 
actually have a legal duty--this is not a criticism of the corporations 
at all--to act in the best interests of their shareholders. They are 
supposed to do that, not to think of the broader public at large.
  Let me make it clear to those Senators concerned about my remarks, 
there is not a suggestion here that the corporations are acting 
illegally or suggesting that there is something wrong with corporations 
doing what they should can for their own interests. I have no illusions 
about it. It is OK with me that the corporate special interests are 
looking out for No. 1 in the public debate. But I must object, and 
object loudly and over and over again, when their deep pockets give 
them deep influence that ordinary Americans simply don't have.
  Corporations with business before the Congress, not disinterested, 
public-spirited millionaires, and certainly not ordinary citizens, lead 
the way in soft money giving. One interesting set of contributors 
proves that access, not ideology, is the main reason for soft money 
donations. In the 1996 election cycle, 40 companies gave over $150,000 
to both political parties. Guess what. Three of those double-givers 
were the oil companies I have already mentioned here today. Double-
givers, they give to both parties: Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, and 
Occidental Petroleum. They cover their bases. This is not always about 
choosing sides, but covering bases.
  I suppose there might be some in the companies or in this body who 
argue that the double-givers just want to assist the political process, 
that they are motivated not by the bottom line but by a keen desire to 
assist both parties in serving the public. If that is the case, why is 
it, in every Congress since I have been here, the industries most 
seriously affected by our work give huge contributions to Members and 
to the political parties?
  In 1993-1994, it was the health care debate. Hospital insurance 
companies, drug companies, and doctors all opened up their wallets in 
an unprecedented way. In 1995 and 1996, the Telecommunications Act was 
under consideration, and, lo and behold, the local and long-distance 
companies and cable companies stepped up giving. In the last Congress--
and this one, for that matter--we have been working on bankruptcy 
reform and financial services modernization. The biggest givers of all 
in the 1998 cycle, according to Common Cause research, was security and 
investment companies, insurance companies, banks, and lenders eager to 
have business interests protected or expanded.
  What is going on here? I suggest this is not a spontaneous burst of 
civic virtue. Since we didn't finish work on the bills last year, the 
money is flowing again this year. It has even been suggested that 
sometimes the very Members of Congress who most want a big bill to pass 
will slow progress to keep the checks flowing in. That such a view of 
legislators and public servants has gained currency in the public 
debate, even if it is true, shows the depths of cynicism that this soft 
money system has inspired in those we represent.
  Mr. President, the American people are not gullible or naive. They 
know that these companies contribute these enormous sums to the parties 
because their bottom line is affected by what the Congress does and 
they want to make sure the Congress will listen to them when they want 
to make their case. And they know that the big contributors get 
results. We are seeing another example of that here today.
  And frankly, it's a two-way street. The parties are hitting up these 
donors because they know that most companies, unlike Monsanto and 
General Motors have announced early in 1997 that they would no longer 
make soft money donations--most companies don't have the courage to say 
no. Most companies are worried that if they don't ante up, their 
lobbyists won't get in the door.

[[Page 22331]]

Our current campaign finance laws encourage old fashioned shakedowns, 
as long as they are done discreetly.
  A growing number of business leaders are objecting to this system, 
and recognizing that it must be changed. The business group CED, the 
Committee for Economic Development, has come out for a ban on soft 
money, and I think we will see more and more business leaders embracing 
campaign finance reform in the future. An unhealthy democracy is not 
healthy for business.
  It is beyond me how any Senator could support this soft money system. 
In a few weeks, we will have a chance to vote on a bill that bans soft 
money. Senator McCain and I are looking forward to that debate, and I 
want to thank the Senator from California for giving me the opportunity 
to talk about it this morning, as part of her fight against this ill-
advised amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. If we can pass a 
soft money ban this year, perhaps there will be fewer of these special 
interest deals to contend with in the future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order. I insist on 
the point of order and insist on a ruling.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not sustained.
  Mr. THOMAS. I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mrs. BOXER. Absence of a quorum. Absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the moment there is not a sufficient 
second.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mrs. BOXER. Ask for a quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending appeal 
be laid aside to be called up by the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am glad we can try now to get back on 
the central subject of this debate, which is so important to many 
people in our country and particularly to us in Louisiana because many 
of these oil companies reside in our State and most of the work in the 
production of oil and gas goes on off of our shore. So I have been 
actually anxious all morning to try to get some time on the floor to 
speak about this issue of royalty valuation.
  But I just feel compelled to say how disappointed I am in my 
colleague from Wisconsin and the remarks he made, I think, directed to 
this issue and to be backed up by the Senator from California. To say 
that this issue, which is giving soft money contributions, ``is at the 
heart'' of this debate, I think is really--it is offensive to the 
Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. It is particularly 
offensive to those of us who actually weren't supported by the oil and 
gas industry when we ran to get elected to the Senate but find 
ourselves having to speak on this issue of royalty valuation because of 
the principles involved, because of the facts involved, and because 
this is a very important principle at stake on this vote.
  I also want to say, as the Senator from Wisconsin knows, I have been 
a strong supporter of campaign finance reform. So I am particularly 
offended by the way he made the remarks in the context of this debate 
and hope in the course of the next 5 or 6 or 7 hours that have been 
agreed to on both sides, we can stay focused on the oil royalty 
valuation and the issues regarding this because they are important.
  So in that vein, let me just try to get us back to the subject at 
hand and remind all my colleagues what this debate is really all about 
because it is important.
  It involves a lot of money. It involves a lot of businesses. It 
involves a lot of employees. It means a lot of jobs. It is about 
taxation, and that is always important to everyone involved.
  The Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior is 
responsible, as has been made clear, for assessing and collecting 
royalties from oil and natural gas production from Federal lands, 
including the Outer Continental Shelf.
  Federal laws that date back to 1920--and while those laws have been 
modified, the fundamental issue has not been changed since 1920--
require that for the purposes of paying Federal royalties, the value of 
oil must be assessed at the lease. That is interpreted and has been 
interpreted to mean at the wellhead. It is at the lease.
  These leases, as we know, are getting larger and farther from the 
shore. They are not just in the neighbor's backyard any longer. They 
are not just out on the rancher's property. They are hundreds of miles 
offshore.
  The usual royalty rate for oil is one-eighth the value from land and 
deep sea and one-sixth the value of oil drawn from offshore leases. In 
1988, oil and gas producers paid more--and I want the record to be 
clear about this--paid more, in 1 year, $4.7 billion in Federal 
royalties and have paid more than $40 billion in the last 10 years. In 
fact, I happen to know because of another bill that many of us have 
been working on, that since 1955, the oil companies have paid in rents, 
royalties, and bonuses $120 billion.
  The thought that the oil companies would balk or would reject paying 
another $60 million is actually ludicrous because they paid $4.7 
billion last year and will probably pay a similar amount next year. 
While my colleagues continue to talk about the $60 million figure, it 
is ludicrous that the oil companies that already pay this amount would 
flinch actually at paying $60 million more.
  What is at issue is the principle of the way this is calculated. As 
we know, before it is sold, the oil is typically transported, 
processed, and marketed for sale. Each of these costs incurred must be 
subtracted from the purchase price in order to get back to the wellhead 
value. It is the determination of this wellhead value that can be 
complex and costly and lengthy, and many legitimate disputes have 
arisen about the correct method of valuation.
  Some of these were addressed as part of the Oil and Gas Royalty 
Fairness Act enacted into law in 1996, but several other contentious 
issues remain. That is why we are debating this today. Both the 
industry and Government agreed that royalty valuation needed to be 
updated and simplified. When that law was passed to encourage 
simplification, the agency responsible for interpreting the law, 
instead of making a rule that is more simple, made it more complicated; 
they made it more complex. The new rule is not very transparent, and it 
is unworkable.
  The industry is stating, and I believe they make a legitimate 
argument when they say: We do not mind paying our fair share, but we 
want the fair share we owe to be more clear so we can get out of the 
courtrooms. The issue today is whether we want to spend 5 months trying 
to work this out, which is what I am proposing we do, along with the 
Senator from Texas, or we want to spend 5 years in court at great cost 
to the taxpayers, at great cost to the industry, at the loss of jobs in 
many States throughout the Nation.
  It simply makes no sense, and with all due respect to the Senator 
from Wisconsin, it has nothing to do, in my case and knowing the 
integrity of the Members of this Senate, with campaign finance reform 
or lack thereof. It has to do with the legitimate difference of opinion 
over an accounting rule. It is not an environmental issue. It is not a 
campaign finance issue. It is an issue regarding a complicated rule.

[[Page 22332]]

  All we are asking is to take some more time to try to work it out so 
we can get out of the courtroom and get on to business because I think 
that is what the taxpayers of America want. I think the people in 
Louisiana, California, Wisconsin, and Texas want us to get back to work 
creating jobs and to get out of the courtrooms. This rule--as has been 
presented in great detail by the Senator from Oklahoma earlier and as 
posted on the chart that is up for display for all to see--is more 
complicated, not less.
  It is as if the opponents, led by the Senator from California, 
seemingly are arguing that if a taxpayer--in this case it happens to be 
an oil company, but tomorrow it could be the taxpayer next door; 
tomorrow it could be your neighbor. If their taxes are audited and a 
discrepancy is found, which often happens, it would be similar to 
allowing the IRS to simply raise their tax rate. That is not fair. It 
is un-American.
  I do not think there are many people in the United States who support 
that, but that is exactly what we are getting ready to do if we do not 
stop this rule from coming into effect. No agency should have the right 
to raise tax rates because of a legitimate difference over an auditing 
procedure that is very complicated. If that precedent is set, there is 
no taxpayer in this Nation safe from having their taxes raised by an 
agency. If we want to raise the royalty rate, then we should do it. If 
we want to raise the tax rate, this Congress should do it. We are 
setting a terrible precedent, allowing an agency to raise a tax rate 
based on a misinterpretation of a rule that is ill conceived and ill 
thought out and ill timed.
  Also, with respect to my colleagues who have argued the other way, 
this is not only a bad principle to set and a rule that should not be 
adopted, but the timing could not be worse. The oil and gas industry, 
the domestic energy industry has just begun to recover from the last 
year and a half which saw oil prices fall to one of the lowest 
constant-dollar prices in history. We have been recovering over the 
last several months. But as you know, this is very volatile. The prices 
can go high; they can go low. Businesses open; they shut down. People 
are laid off. Savings accounts are used up. Industries and businesses 
go out of business and come back. So we are used to it, but it is still 
tough. To be acting this way at this time for an industry that is 
recovering--I do not know how much we want to push because 57 percent 
of all the oil and gas is now imported. That is up from 36 percent in 
1974.
  No. 1, we should not be badgering this industry at this time. We 
should be supporting them, particularly when they have a very 
legitimate request. They are not requesting to reduce the royalties 
they pay. They are not requesting their fair share to be delayed in any 
way. They are asking us, as we develop a rule, to help make the rule 
simple, transparent, and clear so they know what they owe and we know 
what they owe. We can then get out of the courtroom and get back to the 
business of running our Government. You yourself have been very 
sympathetic and very supportive and encouraging as we have attempted to 
create a real wildlife and land conservation trust fund for this 
Nation, which was promised and never delivered because the money goes 
into the general Treasury; it does not go into a real fund.
  So many of us are working on that. That is why this issue is very 
important. That is why it is important we get this rule right and we 
get it straight. It is important that these royalties can flow into our 
Treasury and then, in turn, flow into a real account that some of us 
want to establish so we can fund tremendous environmental programs 
throughout this Nation, and so our States and our counties and our 
cities can count on these revenues to expand parks and recreation, 
which is important not only to California and not only to Wisconsin but 
important to Illinois and to Louisiana and to Texas and to all the 
States and the people we represent.
  So, yes, it is important to get it right. That is why some of us are 
taking some time on the floor to urge our colleagues to vote to not 
allow this complicated and ineffective rule to go into place but to 
give us the time to work it out so the oil companies can pay their fair 
share.
  I also have to say I find it sort of odd, because the oil companies 
did not support me when I came to the Senate, I am feeling kind of odd 
about having to speak so strongly, but I think there have been things 
said on this floor that are offensive.
  Just because they are big oil does not mean they are bad oil. Just 
because they are oil and gas does not mean they are not a legitimate, 
terrific business that is doing their business in a better, more 
environmentally sensitive way. They create thousands of jobs directly 
in my State and around this Nation. Without the work of the oil and gas 
industry, there would not be the lights lit in this Chamber; there 
would not be the factories operating; we would not have the clothes on 
our back.
  So I take offense at others who come to the floor and talk about them 
as ``thieves'' or suggest that they would--they did not use the word 
``bribe,'' so I will be clear that is not what was said, but to infer 
that some companies would go so far.
  We all know our system of campaign finance has to be changed and 
altered and improved. There is hardly anyone in this Chamber who does 
not agree with that. But as a Senator who represents this industry--and 
I represent all the people in my State. I represent the big companies 
and the little companies, the employees, the people who do not work for 
oil companies. That is my job. But I want to say on their behalf I am 
offended by some things I heard on the floor.
  This is not a rip-off. This is not an intention to rip off the 
taxpayer. This is not an effort to steal school lunches from 
schoolchildren. This is a legitimate and complicated business, 
financial and accounting issue that should be resolved, not by the 
bureaucrats but by the Members of this body. So by postponing this 
rule, hopefully, the Members of Congress can come up with a better way, 
a clearer way to keep us out of court.
  So I yield back the remainder of my time, if I can, to the Senator 
from Texas. I thank the Chair and hope we can stay on the central 
arguments of this issue because it is important, and I think all 
Senators should have the right to be heard on the pros and cons of the 
oil royalty valuation in the limited time we have and try to give the 
Senators an opportunity to speak on this important issue before the 
debate is shut off.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague 
from Louisiana. I think she said it very well. The idea that we would 
in any way impugn the integrity of anyone in the Senate on this issue 
is wrong. I do not believe that was meant, but I do think that it came 
across that way.
  I am glad she spoke from her heart. I will, too. I had much the same 
experience. I had not remembered it because I do not count 
contributions, but I was not supported in the early stages when I first 
ran because I was running against an incumbent. That did not make any 
difference; I am representing all the people of Texas and doing what I 
think is right for America.
  What I think is right for America is to keep jobs in America. Oil 
jobs are good jobs. Oil jobs are supporting families all over this 
country. What we are seeing is more and more jobs moving overseas. They 
are being lost by Americans and American families. That means we are 
not only losing jobs in the oil sector, but we are also, unfortunately, 
depending on imports for more and more of our basic oil needs in our 
country. We are getting ready to go into winter, and the last thing we 
need is higher prices on oil. The last thing we need is higher prices 
on gasoline at the pump. Yet if we do not pass this amendment, that is 
exactly what will happen. That is exactly what will happen. Every 
person in America is going to pay higher gasoline prices if we do not 
pass my amendment.

[[Page 22333]]

  So I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her leadership, and her 
colleague, Senator Breaux, for his leadership, in showing how important 
it is.
  Senator Breaux earlier made a point that I think is very important. 
It is shown by this chart. We all would like to have a simpler and 
fairer oil royalty tax on the oil industry so there isn't a dispute.
  All the lawsuits that are being discussed are about disputes on how 
much is owed by oil companies. None of us want oil companies to cheat 
the American schoolchildren or the Indian tribes--none of us. We want 
the oil companies to pay their fair share. Part of the dispute is 
because it is so complicated. We would like to see a simpler system.
  Unfortunately, what the Mineral Management Service has preliminarily 
proposed is this kind of trying to set oil royalty rates. Not only are 
they making you have to go through all these hoops, but they do not put 
out any kind of ruling letter that would allow an oil company, an 
independent producer to know what the precedent is. So that independent 
has to spend thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars every 
time there is a dispute to determine what they owe to the people of our 
country.
  Now, Mr. President, I would like to----
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to yield back the remainder of my time, 
under rule XXII, to Senator Gorton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for yielding that 
time to Senator Gorton, but I hope we will not need it. I hope the 
Senator from California will not continue to hold up the Senate in 
passing the very important Interior appropriations bill that is 
important to her State, to my State, and every State in our country.
  We are now into dilatory tactics. We are now into prolonging 
something that is already accomplished. It is a matter of letting the 
Senate do its will. Sixty people in the Senate believe we need an up-
or-down vote on this amendment. We are going to have an up-or-down vote 
on the amendment. I do not see a purpose, other than after an hour or 
so of legitimate debate--which I think the Senator has already 
received--of prolonging this. Particularly, I hope there will not be an 
attempt to prolong it with irrelevant and nongermane discussion.
  So I am going to go back to the bill because I think it is very 
important. Our amendment seeks to simplify the rulemaking by the 
Mineral Management Service. This is what is proposed. Who can figure it 
out? No wonder there is a dispute between the oil companies and the 
Federal Government or the State government. If this is what the Federal 
Government is putting forward, it is not a precedent for anything. I do 
think we need to simplify.
  The question is, Do we want to raise gas taxes? That is what the MMS 
would propose to do in this circuitous route.
  I want to talk about where we are on the price of gasoline at the 
pump. Every American who fills up their tank knows that the price of 
gasoline has gone up. It is estimated that today the average price of 
gasoline in our country is about $1.20 a gallon. Of that $1.20, the 
light part of this chart shows how much is taxes--I am sorry, the light 
part shows how much is crude oil. The light part is 64 cents. That is 
the cost of crude oil in a gallon of gasoline. But the dark part is 56 
cents, and that is taxes.
  If the Senator from California succeeds in defeating my amendment, 
gas taxes are going to go up, because the MMS, with the circuitous 
route they are proposing, in fact, is going to tax the price of 
gasoline, not at the wellhead, as it has always been and as is the 
standard in the industry, but instead, after it goes through the 
marketing process and through the pipelines, after it is transported, 
all of those costs will be included in what is taxed. Basically, what 
the MMS is doing is raising taxes on every gallon of gas that is bought 
at the pump by every hard-working American. That is the essence of what 
will happen if my amendment fails.
  The policy of taxing expenses in business is also something very new. 
I don't think a Federal agency should be able to change tax policy so 
we now start taxing expenses because that is exactly what happens. If 
we have the requirement that oil be marketed and transported and we 
raise the price accordingly and we tax that expense, we are talking 
about a whole new era. Instead of a Federal excise tax on a Beanie Baby 
being made when the Beanie Baby comes out of the manufacturing shop, it 
will be taxed on the retail shelf. That means every Beanie Baby that is 
marketed in this country and transported by truck to a building, where 
it can be sold at retail, is going to be taxed. You are going to have 
to pay the added tax in the price of that Beanie Baby.
  The price is already going up. We are talking about a whole new 
concept that the MMS is trying to start with the oil industry, to set a 
precedent--no vote of any Member of Congress. Then we will see that 
start happening in other industries as well. It is a very dangerous 
precedent.
  This chart shows what has happened to the price of gasoline at the 
pump in the last 10 years.
  In 1990, the price of gasoline was about $1.21 per gallon. That was 
the average price in 1990. Of that, 26 cents was gasoline taxes and 94 
cents was the cost of the crude oil in that gasoline that was bought at 
the pump. Move down to 1997; the retail price has moved up to $1.29. 
Look at what has happened to the costs. The costs have actually gone 
down. The cost of the oil in that gallon of gasoline has gone from 94 
cents per gallon to 88 cents per gallon. So if that is the case, why 
has the price of gasoline at the pump gone up? It is because taxes have 
increased from 26 cents per gallon to 40 cents per gallon. That is why 
oil prices have gone up in the last 10 years.
  The Senator from California wants to defeat my amendment, which will 
have the effect of raising the taxes on oil, which means every American 
is going to pay a higher tax than 40 cents per gallon. It is going to 
go up by however much MMS says. But if we start taxing the expenses of 
marketing and transportation, we could see 50 cents a gallon going into 
the price of gasoline at the pump and we could start looking at $1.39 
being the average price of gasoline per gallon.
  I think it is very important that we look at where the price of oil 
has gone up and what is causing Americans to pay higher prices at the 
pump. Because we import 57 percent of the oil from foreign countries 
and because OPEC has now limited what they are going to produce, the 
price of the imported oil is also going up. So put added taxes, which 
defeating my amendment will achieve, with the higher price of imported 
oil--you cause oil companies to stop drilling in America because it is 
now so expensive to do so, and it is going to be more expensive if my 
amendment fails--and you have the triple whammy. You have our jobs 
moving overseas, our dependency on foreign oil rising to 57 percent and 
continuing to go up, and the hard-working American paying higher prices 
for gasoline at the pump.
  That is not a good solution. We should not be allowing Federal 
agencies to raise the price of gasoline at the pump by raising the 
price of oil, by taxing it at a higher rate, without so much as one 
vote by a Member of Congress who is accountable to the people.
  If the Senators who want to defeat my amendment want to pass a tax 
increase up or down based on the principles they are espousing from the 
MMS, let them do it. Let them do it on a straight-up vote. Let them 
come to the Senate floor and defend raising gasoline taxes on every 
hard-working American. That is what the effect of defeating my 
amendment will be.
  Why not do it straight up? I call on the Senators who are trying to 
defeat

[[Page 22334]]

my amendment to say: OK, I want higher gasoline taxes; I want hard-
working Americans to pay not $1.20 or $1.29 at the pump; I want them to 
pay $1.39 or $1.49. If that is their goal, let's address it straight 
on, because that is the effect of defeating the Hutchison-Domenici 
amendment.
  I hope we can have a debate that is based on the issues affecting 
this amendment. Let's talk about raising gasoline prices on hard-
working Americans who are seeing prices go up already. Let's talk about 
what will happen if we have a crisis in the Middle East and we have 5-
hour gas lines and we have to pay higher prices to get the gasoline for 
which we wait 5 hours to fill our tanks. Let's talk about the real 
issue here, which is raising the price of gasoline at the pump on hard-
working Americans.
  I don't think that is what Congress wants to do. I think that is why 
60 Members of Congress said let us have an up-or-down vote. That is the 
issue today, Mr. President.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas withhold her 
quorum call?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am happy to allow the Senator to be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Texas. I do look forward to this 
debate. We have, for the first time, a debate about this particular 
rider to an appropriations bill on the Senate floor, finally.
  (Mr. BUNNING assumed the chair.)
  Mrs. BOXER. The Hutchison rider has been agreed to many times in the 
dead of night in the committee. But the Senate has never had time to 
explore all that it means. It is a tough debate going on here. I think 
it is good because, again, it shows, in many ways, the difference 
between the two parties, who stands for whom, where we come out.
  I thought comments of the Senator from Wisconsin about the role of 
campaign contributions to the political parties, as he pointed it out, 
was germane. We may have a vote about that later. He is simply pointing 
out a fact that has been noted in the USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, 
the New York Times, which is that, in fact, campaign contributions 
taint this debate. Even if everybody is pure of heart and pure of soul 
in this Senate--and I pray that is the case--there is an appearance 
here. It doesn't look right when you realize that 5 percent of the oil 
companies--mostly big oil--are not paying their fair share of 
royalties.
  We show it right here on the chart. The cost of the Hutchison 
amendment would represent $66 million that would otherwise go to the 
taxpayers, to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the national parks, 
historic monuments, and to the States to go into the classrooms. So it 
is very important that when these decisions are made, they are being 
made by the pure of heart because you have a situation where the oil 
companies are not paying their fair share--5 percent of the oil 
companies--and the people are therefore not getting their fair share to 
go into the classrooms and the national parks. Therefore, we want to 
make sure the decision is based on the facts, not on campaign 
contributions.
  I thought the Senator from Wisconsin was absolutely brilliant in his 
discussion and laying down the facts that show these campaign 
contributions. I hope if we do have a vote on whether that is germane, 
we will, in fact, find that the Senator from Wisconsin can continue his 
remarks because I think it goes to the heart of the matter. So just to 
show why I have taken the time of the Senate on this, I want to look 
again at this chart, which I call ``Big Oil's Big Rip Off.'' Because of 
this rider, we have lost $66 million from the Treasury--excuse me, we 
have already lost $88 million from the Treasury. Under this amendment, 
we lose another $66 million. That would mean if this amendment passes, 
the total cost of the oil rider will be $154 million to the taxpayers.
  I find it really interesting--a couple of things that the Senator 
from Texas now says--that if we collect the fair share of royalties, we 
will see an increase in gasoline at the pump. Let me tell you why I 
find that really interesting. We have debated this issue for many years 
now, and we have heard every argument being used. It always changes.
  The first argument as to why we should not allow Bruce Babbitt and 
the Interior Department to collect a fair amount of royalties from the 
oil companies was that oil companies are being fair. Why, we are not 
cheating; we are paying the fair share. They argue that. That didn't 
fly. The newspapers didn't buy it. Nobody really bought it. So the next 
argument is, well, maybe there needs to be a clarification. Maybe what 
we are paying isn't exactly right. We don't admit that, but let's have 
a clarification. But we need more time. So let's not allow the Interior 
Department to decide this matter now; let's buy some time.
  OK. Then they went to the third issue because that didn't fly very 
well anymore. The third excuse was that we haven't had enough public 
comment period on the rule. But go ahead and again open up public 
comment, and we will be glad to pay our fair share. Well, there were 17 
meetings held, and then they opened up the public comment period again. 
We have heard every excuse in the world, bar none, as to why we should 
not be collecting the $154 million that is due taxpayers. The latest 
one is: Oh, oh, you better not allow Bruce Babbitt to go after those 
royalties because your prices will go up at the pump. Well, we know for 
a fact--if you look at the amount of money this means to the oil 
companies--it is a tiny percentage.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point a 
chart that shows what these royalties mean to the big oil companies.
  There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               1996 Total                            Percent of         Potential          Percent of
                         Company                            Revenue (Oil and    1996 Roy Paid     Royalty Paid Vs.   Liability Under   Royalty Liability
                                                                Gas J.)        (oil and cond.)        Revenue            the Rule          v. Revenue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Total..............................................    $29,151,000,000       $213,008,437               0.73        $19,459,159               0.07
Exxon Corp. USA, Total...................................    134,249,000,000        154,531,037               0.12          7,993,222               0.01
Chevron USA, Inc. Total..................................     43,893,000,000        159,611,684               0.36          7,111,509               0.02
Texaco Exploration & Prod, I Total.......................     45,500,000,000         87,370,721               0.19          6,375,000               0.01
Marathon Oil Company Total...............................     16,356,000,000         53,593,234               0.33          5,225,380               0.03
Mobile Explor. & Prod. U.S. Total........................     81,503,000,000         55,511,623               0.07          3,978,051               0.00
Conoco Inc. Total........................................     20,579,000,000         30,562,431               0.15          2,444,738               0.01
Phillips Petroleum Co. Total.............................     15,807,000,000         10,527,634               0.07          2,334,420               0.01
BP Exploration and Oil Inc. Total........................     17,165,000,000         46,819,366               0.27          2,138,002               0.01
Amerada Hess Corporation Total...........................      8,929,711,000         12,271,849               0.14          1,446,901               0.02
Amoco Production Company Total...........................     36,112,000,000         31,030,184               0.09          1,427,185               0.00
Pennzoil Products Co. Total..............................      2,486,846,000         23,858,522               0.96          1,416,140               0.06
Unocal Exploration Total.................................      9,599,000,000         36,205,793               0.38          1,358,282               0.01
Murphy Oil Company U.S.A. Total..........................      2,022,176,000         16,445,805               0.81            778,351               0.04
Arco Western Energy Total................................     19,169,000,000         50,363,676               0.26            718,384               0.00
Coastal Oil & Gas Corporat Total.........................     12,166,900,000          4,364,577               0.04            470,939               0.00
Total Petroleum, Inc.--Oil Total.........................     34,526,000,000          3,059,110               0.01            364,045               0.00
Koch Oil Co. Total.......................................        Unavailable          3,214,012  .................            342,222  .................
Fina Oil & Chemical Company Total........................      4,078,502,000          1,393,795               0.03            156,560               0.00
Hunt Oil Company Total...................................        Unavailable          8,256,498  .................            125,731                  0
Howell Petroleum Corporation Total.......................        712,501,000          1,581,010               0.22            122,669               0.02
Frontier Oil & Refining Co. Total........................          3,379,000            486,634              14.40             47,583               1.42
Giant Refining Company Total.............................        Unavailable            945,403  .................             46,854               1.42
Citgo Petroleum Corp. Total..............................        Unavailable            600,941  .................             45,755  .................

[[Page 22335]]

 
Navajo Crude Oil Mktg Co Total...........................        Unavailable          2,598,096  .................             45,063  .................
BHP Petroleum (Americas), I Total........................        135,180,000          6,266,511               4.64             34,020               0.03
Barrett Resources Corp. Total............................        202,572,000            306,239               0.15             32,719               0.02
ANR Production Total.....................................        Unavailable            402,039  .................             13,801  .................
Petro Source Total.......................................        Unavailable            919,725  .................             12,049  .................
Berry Petroleum Company Total............................         57,095,000            132,733               0.23              9,711               0.02
Sinclair Oil Corp. Total.................................        Unavailable            181,480  .................              5,949  .................
Ashland Exploration, Inc. Total..........................     13,309,000,000             47,270               0.00              3,825               0.00
Big West Oil & Gas Inc. Total............................        Unavailable          1,877,664  .................              3,415  .................
Sun Refining & Marketing Co. Total.......................        Unavailable             73,075  .................              2,683  .................
Pride Energy Company Total...............................        Unavailable            113,116  .................              2,389  .................
Cenex, Inc. Total........................................        Unavailable            140,119  .................              2,267  .................
Sunland Refining Corp. Total.............................        Unavailable              4,034  .................              1,919  .................
Diamond Shamrock Ref & Mktg Total........................        Unavailable              6,805  .................                226  .................
Montana Refining Company Total...........................        Unavailable              2,923  .................                213  .................
Gary-Williams Energy Corp. Total.........................        Unavailable             27,848  .................                  8  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total of 40 Companies........................  .................  .................  .................         66,097,612  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mrs. BOXER. The list that is going into the Record shows all of the 
big oil companies and what this really means for them. It is so small 
that these royalty payments, in some cases, can't even be measured. 
They are so minuscule, they can't even be measured. The largest one is 
.07 percent of their revenues. So to stand up here and say your oil 
prices are going to go up is ludicrous. It is completely a new argument 
that absolutely holds no weight. Even if they were to pass this on, it 
would not even be a penny a gallon. It would not even be a mill.
  Let's face it; this isn't anything about higher gas prices because it 
doesn't even impact these companies. This isn't about any of that. It 
is about fairness; it is about justice. How do we know that it is about 
fairness and justice? The whistleblowers who work for big oil have 
testified. Let me tell you about something I have not even mentioned 
before in this debate. Recently, there was a lawsuit filed on behalf of 
two whistleblowers from big oil, and the lawsuit is quite compelling. 
It is so compelling that the Justice Department actually joined in as a 
party to the lawsuit.
  I know we have heard many seven schemes. We have heard of the Seven 
Wonders of the World; the Seven Years' War; Seven Brides for Seven 
Brothers; the Seven Seas; Seventh Heaven; Seven Days of the Week; 
Seventh Inning Stretch--which is what we could probably use right now--
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs; Lucky Number Seven; Dance of the Seven 
Veils; the Seven Year Itch. How about even this biblical one: Forgive 
your enemies 70 times 7; Seven Hills of Rome; the Magnificent Seven; 
Seven Days in May; the Seven Percent Solution. There is even a book 
called ``The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People''; Seven-Up. We 
have heard of 7-Eleven stores; Seven Samurai; Double-O Seven; there is 
even Seven Sleepers of Ephesus.
  So we have heard a lot about sevens in history, and today on this 
floor of the Senate I am going to talk about another seven. This isn't 
a pretty one. This isn't a movie. This isn't a song. This isn't a 
saying. This is a lawsuit, a lawsuit that outlined the seven schemes of 
the oil companies--the seven schemes of the oil companies to defraud 
the taxpayers. I am going to speak to you from this lawsuit. I am going 
to read to you right from this lawsuit. Before you fall asleep and 
think it is boring, it is not boring. These are two whistleblowers, 
former ARCO executives, big boys in the echelon, who cleansed their 
souls. This is what they said in a lawsuit under penalty of perjury:

       Causes of action alleged herein arise from a nationwide 
     conspiracy by some of the world's largest oil companies to 
     shortchange the United States of America of hundreds of 
     millions of dollars in revenues known as royalties.

  Let me repeat that because this is the crux of what is before us 
today. Two whistleblowers from the highest echelons of the big oil 
companies stated under penalty of perjury that there is a ``nationwide 
conspiracy by some of the world's largest oil companies to shortchange 
the United States of America of hundreds of millions of dollars in 
revenues known as royalties.''
  What does this amendment do? Why am I taking the Senate's time? I 
want to shine the light of truth on this issue.
  The Department of the Interior knows this scam is going on, and they 
want to fix it. What we have before us is an amendment to stop the 
Interior Department. You can see from the poster by my good friend from 
Texas. Now the argument is: Turn your sights on the Interior 
Department; they are corrupt. This is a new argument about trial 
lawyers. I haven't heard that one before. I guess they keep taking a 
poll to see who is popular, and then they try to argue with us because 
they cannot argue with us on the merits.
  I think it is also very interesting because the Senator from Texas 
and the Senator from Wyoming tried to stop Senator Feingold from 
talking about the oil company contributions. They are coming up with 
the trial lawyers. I find it is interesting. That is fine. I don't mind 
that. I wouldn't gag any of my colleagues. They can say whatever they 
want because the issue here is clear. It is stated in a lawsuit:

       There is a nationwide conspiracy by some of the world's 
     largest oil companies to shortchange the United States of 
     America of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue known 
     as royalties.

  That is not a statement by trial lawyers; that is a statement under 
penalty of perjury by two former employees of big oil.
  Let's see what else they say.
  They say:

       There is a pattern and a practice of carefully developed 
     and coordinated schemes targeted to defraud the United States 
     of America of its lawful share of royalties owed by the 
     defendants, the oil companies, for crude oil produced in 
     United States owned or controlled land.

  In English language, it means that when these oil companies drill on 
lands that belong to the people of the United States of America, land 
of the United States, either onshore or offshore, they are not paying 
their royalties.
  To continue:

       The oil companies' unlawful conduct is continuing in nature 
     and these major oil companies operating in the United States 
     have underpaid oil royalties to the United States by 
     calculating the royalties based on prices less than the total 
     consideration actually received by the oil companies.

  In English language, these royalties are not being based on the fair 
market price, which is what they have to be, according to the lease 
they sign. Let's take a look at that lease they signed because I think 
that is pretty telling.
  The Senator from Texas keeps referring to a royalty as a tax. A 
royalty is not a tax. A royalty is paid subject to an agreement. When 
oil companies drill on lands that belong to ``we, the people,'' they 
have to pay something for it. It is a privilege, and they have to pay 
something for it. The ``something'' that they pay for is the subject of 
this debate.
  The Department of the Interior says--and these whistleblowers say--
that 5 percent of the oil companies are cheating and 95 percent are 
doing the right thing. They are paying the fair market value--their 
royalty is based on a fair market value--but 5 percent of the companies 
that are cheating us are not. We know that to be the case.
  So let's look at the agreement that the oil companies signed. They 
signed an agreement that says the value of production for purposes of 
computing royalty on production shall never be

[[Page 22336]]

less than the fair market value of the production. It further says gas 
of all kinds, except helium, is subject to royalties and that, for 
purposes of computing, the royalty from this lease shall never be less 
than the fair market value of production.
  That is the subject of this debate. Five percent of the oil companies 
are not paying the fair market value.
  Let's look at some of the companies and the posted prices.
  Whistleblowers have told us that these oil company executives sit 
around and plan to defraud the people. It is all in this lawsuit, and 
it is reflected in this chart. If you track the market price of oil--
right here we have done that-- from July 1997 to June 1998, just to 
give you an example, this blue line is the market price.
  How do we know the market price? It is listed in oil publications 
every day. We know what it is. It is really definable. If you track 
that market price compared with this red line, which is the ARCO posted 
price--in other words, that is the price ARCO decided to pay royalties 
on--what do you see? You see a differential of about $4 per barrel. 
Sometimes it is less--$2. But it can go up to $4 or $5 in difference. 
What does that mean? It means that the taxpayers are being defrauded by 
this amount in the middle, in between the two.
  Do we have another oil company? It just doesn't happen in ARCO. I 
don't want to say it just happens in ARCO.
  Here we have another oil company. We track the market prices and the 
posted prices. Isn't it amazing? Why is it this way? Because these 
companies are cheating the Government. They are not paying the 
royalties based on the blue line, which is the market price, which they 
have to, according to the agreement they signed. This isn't about 
taxes, my friends. This is a royalty agreement. They are paying the 
royalty based on the red line, and the taxpayers are getting ripped 
off.
  You may say, well, what is $4 a barrel with $2 to $4 on a regular 
basis? It is a lot. Let me tell you what it is. We are not talking 
about peanuts; we are talking about real dollars. Let's talk about 
that.
  This amendment that is before us today, on which the Senator from 
Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, got 60 votes--just the amount she needed, and 
not 1 vote to spare to bring this amendment to the floor--is about real 
dollars, $66 million. What can you do with $66 million?
  By the way, that is only 1 year. If this continues, we are looking at 
$1/2 billion pretty soon, and $1 billion after that.
  Let's take 1 year for this particular amendment, $66 million. We 
could have hired 1,000 teachers with that. We know we need more 
teachers in the classroom. These royalty payments, when they go to the 
States, are used in the classroom. Anyone who talks about how we need 
more money for education, we could hire 1,000 teachers with the $66 
million.
  Maybe you don't want to hire teachers. Maybe you want to improve the 
schools. We can put 44,000 new computers in the classroom with $66 
million. That is just this year. Or we can buy textbooks for 1.2 
million students.
  Have you ever looked at some of the textbooks in our public schools? 
When I was a kid and I got a textbook--it was a long time ago; I plead 
guilty to that--when we opened up a textbook in those happy days, it 
smelled clean and fresh. It was clean and fresh. It was ours. Today, 
some of the textbooks have writing; they are old; they are falling 
apart. What kind of message is that?
  I could be challenged: Why is the Senator from California talking 
about schools, textbooks, and teachers? Easy. The money we would get if 
we defeat the Hutchison amendment could buy 1.2 million students new 
textbooks.
  If you want to do something for the safety net with that $66 million, 
we could provide 53 million hot lunches for schoolchildren, lunches 
that have more than ketchup, I might say; lunches with nourishment, 
nutrition. We know a lot of our kids need that.
  When these oil companies sit around and plot to defraud the 
government--and we have it here, under penalty of perjury, that that is 
what they do with seven schemes. We have the schemes outlined. Later in 
the debate I will get into exactly what are the seven schemes. 
Essentially, all seven are schemes to lower the value of the oil that 
is pumped from Federal lands. They have intricate ways of doing that. 
It is spelled out right here. I will read a little more from this 
complaint.
  These whistleblowers, who were former executives high up in the chain 
of big oil, say:

       . . . they have knowledge of the unlawful conduct, 
     including the schemes and the practices alleged herein, which 
     include the oil company's misrepresentation and underpayment 
     of oil royalty payments to the United States.

  They go through the schemes. Does anyone want to challenge the 
authenticity of these charges from these whistleblowers, former oil 
executives, who say they have ``direct knowledge that this is going 
on.'' They call it ``conspiratorial activities'' to cheat the United 
States out of its royalty income by deflating the base price of oil 
upon which royalties are to be paid.
  This is thievery. People say: Why are you taking the time of the 
Senate, Senator Boxer? It is because I love this place too much to see 
us put our imprimatur on this scheme.
  Let's read directly from the Platt's Oil article that shows exactly 
what one of these executives said under penalty of perjury. This is an 
article that appeared over the summer of this year in an oil company 
report. This isn't from the New York Times. We have gotten a good 
article from the New York Times. We have gotten good articles from USA 
Today and the Los Angeles Times. We have gotten good articles in South 
Dakota; we have gotten good articles in Michigan. All of those 
editorials are saying Senator Boxer is right.
  This is from an oil company newspaper, so it should have total 
credibility with all who take the oil company's side. I will read this 
article entitled ``Retired ARCO Employee Says Company Underpaid Oil 
Royalties.''

       A retired Atlantic Richfield employee has admitted in court 
     that while he was the secretary of ARCO's crude pricing 
     committee, the major's posted prices were far below the fair 
     market value.

  Let me repeat that. An oil company executive who worked in this area 
said that the ``posted prices''--that is, the price that the oil 
company paid the royalty on--was ``far below the fair market value.''
  Let's look at the chart again. He is saying the amount they paid 
their royalties on--remember, the royalty is a percentage, about 12 
percent if it is onshore, 12 percent of the fair market value. They did 
12 percent of their made-up posted price.
  He is not anonymous. This man has a name. He has put his good name 
out there. He has said under penalty of perjury in court that what he 
says is true. Harry Anderson is his name. He testified this month in an 
ongoing suit, and he said he was a witness to the inner workings of 
ARCO. According to court documents, Anderson testified that the primary 
purpose of the crude pricing committee was to set the posted prices for 
the mid-continent, Alaskan and California crudes. In other words, it 
was his job to decide what was the posted price. On that posted price, 
they would pay their royalties. Whatever Mr. Anderson and his friends 
decided was that fair market value called the posted price, that is on 
what they would pay the royalties.
  This chart shows consistently these prices were below the market 
price listed in the paper. Could this be an accident? No, because he 
said ARCO's postings were within 15 to 30 cents per barrel of the 
others, and at least $4 to $5 below what was accepted as fair market 
value for crude.
  What he said was all of the majors were doing this. This 5 percent 
that we say are doing the wrong thing were within a few cents of each 
other, and all of them, according to him, were $4 to $5 below the fair 
market price. That is even more than we said, $2 to $4. He says in a 
certain period of time they were $4 to $5 below market price.
  Under penalty of perjury, a man with the inside knowledge of what was 
going on, said that ARCO and the other

[[Page 22337]]

``posters''--meaning the posted price people--never raised the posted 
price to the market value. We see that is true. We plotted the market 
price during that period and here is the posted price. He says all of 
our calculations, all the public information on refined values relating 
to California crudes say the fair market value was well in excess of 
the posting.
  That is another way of putting it: The fair market value was well in 
excess; it was more than the posted prices that they put down.
  He said, and this is really interesting, he was:

       . . . not being truthful 5 years ago when he testified in a 
     deposition that ARCO's posted prices represented fair market 
     value.

  So the man admits that he wasn't truthful before in court. He is 
cleansing his soul and he is now telling the truth. He goes on to say, 
and this is chilling, in explanation for why he lied about the fair 
market value:

       I was an ARCO employee. Some of the issues being discussed 
     were still being litigated.

  Listen to this. He says:

       My plan was to get to retirement. We had seen numerous 
     occasions where the nail that stood up got beaten down.

  What does that mean? Someone who had the courage to stand up in the 
face of the higher-ups and tell the truth that they were cheating 
taxpayers got beaten down. Harry Anderson said that. It is pretty 
chilling. He goes on. He said:

       The senior executives of ARCO had the judgment that they 
     would take the money, accrue for the day of judgment, and 
     that's what we did.

  What does he mean by that, ``take the money'' and wait ``for the day 
of judgment?''
  What he means is they would lie about the value of the oil, not give 
the true market value, pay less of a royalty, pocket the money, and 
wait for the judgment day.
  Maybe the judgment day is here, I say to my friends. Maybe if this 
Senate has some courage, we can stop this fraud today. We will not be 
stopping it if we approve the Hutchison amendment, I will say that. Mr. 
Anderson said he was afraid he would lose his retirement if he didn't 
go along with the game. Mr. Anderson said the other executives said: 
What the heck, we'll just lie about this and we'll wait for the 
judgment day. That is a translation of what he said. He goes on to say 
even more chilling things. He goes on to say:

       I would not have been there in any capacity had I continued 
     to exercise the right they had given me to dissent to the 
     process during the discussion stage.

  Let me repeat that:

       I would not have been there in any capacity had I continued 
     to exercise the right they had given me to dissent to the 
     process during the discussion stage.

  In other words, Mr. Anderson is saying if I blew the whistle, I would 
be gone. If I did not go along with this scheme--and we now know seven 
schemes--that he would be gone. He says further:

       Once we made our decisions, the ranks closed.

  So they sat around, decided to wait for the judgment day, and people 
like Harry Anderson who were afraid for their retirement went along 
with the scheme. Then he says: Once we made our decision we closed 
ranks. That was the deal.
  He says further:

       I did not get to be a manager and remain a manager being 
     oblivious and blind to signals.

  What an ethic. What an ethic. Where is the corporate responsibility, 
when they have someone who is honest in their ranks and he is afraid to 
talk because he will get fired, he won't get his retirement? When he 
talks up about how the company underpaid oil royalties, he is finished. 
So he doesn't talk up. And he is feeling guilty and he is carrying this 
on his back. He comes clean in a lawsuit where he just says: I was 
afraid of losing my job if I told the truth.
  We are going to protect that kind of behavior by the oil companies by 
voting for this amendment? I pray not. I pray not. I really hope some 
of the folks who voted for cloture to bring this debate to a close will 
join me on the substance of this thing. I have never in all my years in 
politics--and I have been in politics so long I am embarrassed to tell 
you that I was elected the first time in 1976. I have seen a lot of 
things. I have seen issues that were cloudy. I have seen issues where 
the line between right and wrong was fudged. They say every issue has 
two sides. This one does. The oil companies versus the people. That is 
the two sides.
  The Interior Department wants to make sure the oil companies pay 
their fair share so the people get their fair share. We will show you 
the money again; the money, what is at stake here. If we do not vote 
down the Hutchison amendment, the people of America will have lost $154 
million.
  Let's suppose you do not even like to spend it on national parks; you 
don't want to spend it in classrooms. How about paying down the debt? I 
will bet a lot of folks think that is a good idea. But, no, if we vote 
for the Hutchison amendment, we lose a cumulative $154 million.
  I want to read into the Record a letter I just received from the 
Consumer Federation of America. First, I want to say a word about the 
groups that have really worked hard to defeat this Hutchison amendment. 
I just told you before there are two sides on this amendment: the oil 
companies versus the people of the United States of America. I believe 
that in my heart. We have over 50 groups that are helping us defeat 
this amendment. Every one of them is worthy of mention, but I do not 
have time at this point to mention them all, so I will mention some of 
them:
  The American Association of Educational Service Agencies--they know 
they are being robbed of education funds by this amendment. They oppose 
it. The American Association of School Administrators, the American 
Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of 
Teachers--they have to be in the classrooms with the books that don't 
measure up, without computers. They want to fight for this. They are 
against the Hutchison amendment.
  American Rivers, Americans for Clean Energy, the Arkansas State Lands 
Commission, the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 
the Clean Fuels Foundation, Common Cause. Common Cause understands what 
is at stake here. They agree with Senator Feingold when he stood up--
and they tried to gag him when he said there is a tie-in between this 
amendment and the campaign finances where big special interests like 
the tobacco companies, the oil companies, you name it, have an 
incredible amount of influence. Again, even if everyone was pure of 
heart it looks terrible to see the special interests win on these.
  The Better Government Association is with us, the Colorado State 
Board of Land Commissioners, the Consumer Project on Technology--they 
know they need technology in schools--Defenders of Wildlife. It is an 
incredible list. The Friends of the Earth, the Gray Panthers--they are 
the elderly. They understand we need to support our parks and our kids 
and our schools; the Montana Department of Natural Resources and 
Conservation.
  I am just on the M's, and this goes all the way to the W's.
  I want to comment on one of the organizations that has worked so hard 
with me and others on this, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, U.S. 
PIRG. They have worked very diligently talking with colleagues, and we 
have kept this fight alive because of these people. We have kept this 
fight on the front pages of some of the newspapers because of these 
people. Hopefully, tonight we will see it on TV.
  The Washington State Lands Commissioner; the Wilderness Society; the 
Wisconsin Secretary of State and Chair, Board of Commissioners of 
Public Lands--this is an incredible list. I left out the N's and the 
P's, and I will have to get back to them later.
  Today, I have a new letter from the Consumer Federation of America. 
Let me read it. This is one of the foremost consumer groups in the 
country. I have to say it is now headed by a beloved colleague, Howard 
Metzenbaum, who served here as the voice of the consumers for so long, 
the voice for the

[[Page 22338]]

people who do not have a voice, the voice for the people who have to 
get up in the morning and go to work, the people who cannot afford to 
send their lobbyists here and the people who cannot afford campaign 
contributions.
  What does he say in this letter?

       The Consumer Federation of America joins you in opposing 
     the Hutchison-Domenici rider to [this bill]. [The 
     organization] is concerned about the decline in 
     accountability of many corporations to the needs and concerns 
     of consumers, communities, and national interests. This rider 
     is a case study in this lack of accountability, not to 
     mention an unjustified subsidy by the taxpayers to the [big] 
     oil companies.
       According to the Department of Interior, eighteen oil 
     companies have consistently undervalued the cost of oil 
     drilled on federal land to avoid paying [their royalty 
     payments] of about $66 million a year.

  He goes on to say we have already lost $88 million and that this 
amendment of Senator Hutchison will, in fact, delay the Department of 
the Interior--even a better word--``prohibit the Department of Interior 
from finalizing their regulations'' to require the oil companies to pay 
their royalties based on the fair market price of the oil, not on a 
lower price established by the oil companies themselves.
  Howard Metzenbaum said it as straight as one can. They are paying 
royalties on their made-up price rather than on the market price.
  He goes on to say that the Consumer Federation of America opposes 
this rider for two reasons.
  One:

       The undervaluation of oil drilled on Federal land amounts 
     to nothing more than corporate welfare. The practice 
     represents an unjustified subsidy, especially to the larger 
     oil companies that are in a position to reap huge returns 
     from oil drilled on Federal land.

  Second:

       Taxpayers must pick up the tab for this subsidy, to the 
     tune of tens of millions of dollars a year.

  He goes on to say:

       The Consumer Federation of America applauds you for your 
     efforts to insure that taxpayers receive a fair return from 
     federal oil sales.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record, along with a list of groups that are, in fact, opposing the 
Hutchison amendment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               Consumer Federation of America,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 1999.

     Re Urgent! CFA opposes Hutchison-Domenici oil royalty rider.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: The Consumer Federation of America 
     (CFA) joins you in opposing the Hutchison-Domenici rider to 
     the FY 2000 Department of Interior Appropriations bill. CFA 
     is concerned about the decline in accountability of many 
     corporations to the needs and concerns of consumers, 
     communities, and national interests. This rider is a case 
     study in this lack of accountability, not to mention an 
     unjustified subsidy by the taxpayers to large oil companies.
       According to the Department of Interior, eighteen oil 
     companies have consistently undervalued the cost of oil 
     drilled on federal land and avoided paying fees of about $66 
     million a year. Since this rider first took effect last year, 
     an estimated $88 million in royalties have not been 
     collected. This rider would prohibit the Department of 
     Interior from finalizing regulations that would require oil 
     companies to pay royalties based on the market price of oil 
     drilled on federal land, and not on a lower price established 
     by the oil companies themselves.
       CFA opposes this ride for two primary reasons:
       The undervaluation of oil drilled on Federal land amounts 
     to nothing more than corporate welfare. The practice 
     represents an unjustified subsidy, especially to the larger 
     oil companies that are in a position to reap huge returns 
     from oil drilled on Federal land.
       Taxpayers must pick up the tab for this subsidy, to the 
     tune of tens of millions of dollars a year.
       CFA applauds you for your efforts to insure that taxpayers 
     receive a fair return from federal oil sales.
           Sincerely,
                                             Howard H. Metzenbaum,
     Senator (Ret.).
                                  ____


 Opposition to Moratorium Hits a Gusher: Millions Agree Big Oil Should 
                             Pay Fair Share

                        (Revised August 3, 1999)

       Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) has vowed to re-attach 
     an amendment known as the oil royalty moratorium to the 
     Department of Interior appropriations bill in the coming 
     days. The moratorium would stop Interior from implementing a 
     rule that prevents royalty-evasion by 40 of the largest oil 
     companies drilling on federal and Indian lands. A growing 
     coalition of educational, taxpayer, conservation, native 
     American and labor organizations as well as state governments 
     agree with Interior that Big Oil should pay its fair share.

     American Assn of Educational Service Agencies
     American Association of School Administrators
     American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO
     American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 
         (AFSCME)
     American Federation of Teachers
     American Lands Alliance
     American Oceans Campaign
     American Rivers
     American Wind Energy Association
     Americans for Clean Energy
     Arkansas State Lands Commission
     Better Government Association
     California State Lands Commission
     Calif. State Superintendent of Public Instruction
     Clean Fuels Foundation
     Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners
     Common Cause
     Consumer Project on Technology
     Council of Chief State School Officers
     Defenders of Wildlife
     EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund
     Endangered Species Coalition
     Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs
     Friends of the Earth
     Fund for Constitutional Government
     Government Accountability Project
     Gray Panthers
     Greenpeace
     Mineral Policy Center
     Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
     National Assn of State Boards of Education
     National Audubon Society
     National Education Association
     National Environmental Trust
     National Parent-Teachers Association (PTA)
     National Parks and Conservation Association
     National Rural Education Association
     National School Boards Association
     National Trust for Historic Preservation
     National Wildlife Federation
     Native American Rights Fund
     Natural Resources Defense Council
     The Navajo Nation
     New Mexico State Lands Commissioner
     North Dakota Commissioner of University and School Lands
     Ozone Action
     Pacific Rivers Council
     Paper Allied Industrial Chemical and Energy Workers (PACE)
     Physicians for Social Responsibility
     Preamble Center
     Project On Government Oversight
     Public Citizen's Congress Watch
     Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project
     Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
     Safe Energy Communication Council
     Service Employees International Union
     Sierra Club
     South Dakota Commissioner of Schools and Public Lands
     Southern Utah Wilderness Association
     SUN DAY Campaign
     Taxpayers for Common Sense
     Texas State Lands Commissioner
     Trout Unlimited
     20/20 Vision
     UNITE, Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees
     United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America
     United for a Fair Economy
     U.S. Public Interest Research Group
     Washington State Lands Commissioner
     Wilderness Society
     Wisconsin Secretary of State and Chair, Board of 
         Commissioners of Public Lands
     World Wildlife Fund

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are in quite a situation here, and I am 
going to go through some of the charts I have not gone through up to 
this time.
  When we talk about the money we will lose because of the Hutchison 
amendment--and I find it ironic we are doing an appropriations bill to 
appropriate money for the various functions therein, including national 
parks, including very important functions, such as preserving historic 
monuments--we realize we are losing $66 million, and I told you that 
money can go pretty far. It will affect many States.
  My staff has been extraordinary in terms of all the research and all 
the work they have put into this issue. I thank Jodi Linker, Matthew 
Baumgart, and the rest of my staff, and Liz Tankersley and Dave 
Sandretti

[[Page 22339]]

who helped us. When you are hit with an issue such as this and you know 
you have an uphill battle, it takes a good staff to keep on keeping on, 
to keep on keeping up with the issues, and they do. I am so grateful to 
them.
  Today I have a new chart. It shows the 11 most endangered historic 
sites in America. What is very interesting about this is that these 
buildings qualify for Federal funds to preserve them. As we go into the 
next millennium, we start thinking about our heritage, our great 
Nation. One of the things we have to do is restore these incredible 
monuments to our history. There are 11 of them. They desperately are 
seeking, not Susan, but funding. They must have funding because they 
are old and they will otherwise fall apart.
  I was at one such monument. It is not 1 of the 11 great ones. It is a 
small one. But it is in a little town north of my home, Sonoma County. 
It is a round barn. I never really knew what a round barn was, but it 
is famous. In the 1800s, they used to take the horses and run them 
around in this barn. We only have a couple left in California. This one 
is falling apart. It needs a few dollars. So when people say $66 
million, let's look at these 11.
  The Senator from Illinois is here, and I point out to him that one of 
these endangered landmarks, as I remember, is in Illinois. I wonder if 
he realizes--and I know he does--that some of this funding that would 
otherwise go to the Interior Department and we are not going to see if 
the Hutchison amendment is adopted could go to help one of the 
monuments in his State, which is the Pullman Administration Building 
and factory complex, in Pullman, IL, which dates back to 1890.
  All of these are very endangered. We see one in Rochester, NY, the 
Monroe Theater. We see one in Louisville, KY, a beautiful place called 
Robinswood. We see one in Cleveland, MT, Lancaster, PA, barn shadow, 
``Lost Barn.'' We see the Allen Auditorium in Alaska and, in my own 
State, the incredible Angel Island Immigration Station through which 
many of our ancestors came. In New York State, there are four national 
historic landmark hospitals. There is one in Hudson Valley. It is a 
beautiful one. One is in Baltimore, west side of downtown Baltimore, 
Chinatown. It is endangered.
  I say to my colleagues, when we are fighting against this amendment, 
we are, in fact, saying it is not fair for 5 percent of the oil 
companies to do the wrong thing, to defraud the people of the United 
States of America of their money; it is wrong to do that.
  There are other uses for this money. We believe even if all those 
uses did not have support, paying down the debt would be better than 
allowing this big ripoff to continue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and retain my time.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 hour.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California, again, for 
engaging in this debate. There are those who stay glued to their 
screens watching the Senate debate from early morning to late at night.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Illinois will pardon the 
Chair, I misstated. The Senator has 22 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  Those who stay glued to the screens watching C-SPAN and the Senate 
debate know what this is all about. Those who come to the gallery or 
tune in may not understand why we are on the floor today with a few 
Members very deeply involved in debate.
  This is a debate over the use of America's public lands, lands owned 
by all of us as citizens of the United States. We have a lot of them, 
literally millions of acres. Some of them are beautiful, pristine 
parks, and some are national forests.
  Many of these lands are used for a variety of purposes. Some are used 
for recreational and tourism purposes, our beautiful National Park 
System which was instituted by a famous Republican President, Theodore 
Roosevelt, who opened Yosemite National Park and started the park 
system, and many other aspects such as the National Forest System, of 
which we have in Illinois the Shawnee National Forest, one of the more 
beautiful parts of our State. We are very proud of it.
  Then as you go out West, you find a variety of public lands. I am the 
sponsor of a bill, on which perhaps a dozen of my colleagues have 
joined me, for the so-called Utah Wilderness, an area much different 
from my national forest in southern Illinois, but as a desert, in its 
own way, it has a special beauty. It is a wilderness area owned by the 
Federal Government.
  We say that many areas of public land are going to be protected, that 
literally no one can use them, or, if you do, it is in a very careful 
manner. But we say as well that there are some lands which can be used, 
public lands, by private individuals and companies for a fee. So we 
invite onto some lands, like national forests, logging companies that 
come in and chop down trees. They make a profit off the lumber. They 
give money to the Federal Government to use that land to chop those 
trees down.
  We also allow mining companies to come in on public land to mine for 
minerals which they turn around and sell. We say to western ranchers: 
You can let your cattle graze on public lands here, chew the grass, get 
fat to bring to market to make you a profit. You will pay us a fee to 
do it, but you are welcome to use the land.
  This debate is about the use of public lands where oil companies come 
in and drill for oil. Keep it in perspective. The oil companies do not 
own the land. We do. The taxpayers do. The oil companies--private 
companies--come in and bid for the right to drill for oil. If they are 
fortunate and find oil they can then sell for a profit, they give us 
back a rental fee called a royalty. That is what this debate is all 
about. It is about 5 percent of the oil companies in America, the 
largest oil companies, and whether they will pay to us, as taxpayers, 
to the Federal Government, a fair rental payment, a royalty payment for 
extracting oil from our land and selling it for a profit.
  Sounds like a pretty simple undertaking. We put a formula into law. 
The formula said: We are going to base the royalty that you pay the 
taxpayers for drilling oil on public lands based on what the price of 
the oil is. It sounds eminently sensible, reasonable, and easy. It is 
not. We found, over the last several years, that the oil companies have 
found ways to avoid coming up with the real price of the oil. They have 
six or seven different schemes they use to basically pay less to the 
taxpayers than they are supposed to pay.
  How can I say that? I can say it because a lot of States and the 
Federal Government have taken the oil companies to court and have said 
they did not pay the royalty required by law. The oil companies, over 
several years, have paid back $5 billion that was underpaid in 
royalties. We caught them with their hands in the cookie jar. They had 
not paid the taxpayers--State and Federal taxpayers--what they were 
required to pay under the law.
  The amendment before us by the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, 
says, the Department of the Interior cannot recalculate this royalty 
fee based on the new prices of oil. It would be the fourth time in 
several years that we stopped the Interior Department from 
recalculating the royalty. In other words, we are saying we do not care 
if the oil companies owe us more money, we are not going to collect it.
  How much is it worth to us, to the taxpayers? It is $5.6 million per 
month. Some watching this will say: For goodness' sake, don't they lose 
that on the floor of the Treasury when they are mopping up at night? 
And $5.6 million a month, that isn't much by Federal standards where 
you talk about trillions and billions.
  They have a point. But for the average person, the average family, 
the average business, $66 million a year is real money, real money that 
the oil companies should pay us and are not

[[Page 22340]]

paying us and will not pay us if the Hutchison amendment passes because 
the Hutchison amendment insulates the oil companies from this 
recalculation of the royalty that they pay. Why? Why in the world would 
we take the oil companies and do this?
  If this were the Little Sisters of the Poor about to have their 
mortgage foreclosed on their convent, for goodness' sake, count me in. 
I will be ready to consider an amendment. We are talking about the 
largest oil companies in the world. They are being protected by this 
amendment. I think it is a bit unseemly, if you will, for these oil 
companies to come on our land--not their land--drill oil, an 
irreplaceable resource, sell it for a profit, and refuse to pay the 
taxpayers what they owe them for being on this land. That is what this 
amendment does.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senate yield on that point?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate the Senator's outrage on this.
  It is incredible. Some of our colleagues have come up and said things 
privately such as: I can't believe you're attacking these oil 
companies.
  I want to make a point and make sure my friend saw this. I read from 
a complaint that was filed by two whistleblowers from big oil--ARCO, as 
it happens. In their words--these are not words from the Senator from 
Illinois or words from the Senator from California, who has been told 
she doesn't know what she is talking about. If I don't, I believe 
people who have worked in the oil companies for many years. I want to 
make sure my friend has heard this. I am going to read to him a little 
piece of the introduction to this complaint and ask him if he has read 
it before, and even though he might not have, if he could comment on 
it.
  This is an introduction to a lawsuit being filed by two 
whistleblowers. These are two people who worked for ARCO, big 
executives in ARCO, who had in their heart, I think--these are my 
words, not theirs--the need to tell the truth about what went on inside 
those corporate walls. This is what they say. They say:

       [There was] a nationwide conspiracy by some of the world's 
     largest oil companies to shortchange the United States of 
     America of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues--known 
     as royalties--derived from the production of crude oil . . .

  They go on to say:

       [There was] a pattern and practice of carefully developed 
     and coordinated schemes--

  They outline seven schemes--

     targeted to defraud the United States of its lawful share of 
     oil royalties . . .

  They go on to say: ``This is an ongoing conspiracy.''
  So I ask my friend this direct question: about his outrage he 
exhibits on this floor. Isn't there a reason for anyone with a set of 
eyes and a brain to match to be outraged when not just one 
whistleblower but two and three and four and more people who got high-
paid salaries admit that they sat around and defrauded the taxpayers, 
and that this amendment would allow that outrage to continue--does that 
not reflect my friend's views?
  Mr. DURBIN. It does. I say further that it is a matter of whether or 
not we are going to be Uncle Sam or ``Uncle Sucker.'' Think about these 
oil companies. We are talking about $66 million a year.
  Let me tell you, it is a bit unseemly for these oil companies to be 
fighting over $66 million a year, owed to the taxpayers, to come in and 
to support an amendment which insulates them from paying $66 million to 
the taxpayers.
  Let me give you an idea why I think it is unseemly. And I agree with 
the Senator from California. Let's take a look at the oil companies 
involved. As I have said, you are not going to find the Little Sisters 
of the Poor Petroleum Company here.
  No. 1, Shell Oil Company. The total revenues of Shell Oil Company in 
1996 were $29 billion. Exxon Corporation, $134 billion; Chevron, $43 
billion; Texaco, $45 billion; Marathon, $16 billion; Mobil, $81 
billion; Conoco, $20 billion. The list goes on and on.
  The reason I read those--and there are many more--you would recognize 
every name on the list. You know these companies. You have seen their 
gas stations. You have seen their stock printed in the paper. They have 
huge worldwide sales. And these multi-multibillion-dollar huge 
companies refuse to pay us, the taxpayers, Uncle Sam, America, a fair 
royalty, a fair rental payment for drilling oil on our land and selling 
it for their profit.
  Can we conclude that these companies are in such perilous financial 
condition that $66 million would break the bank? Let me tell you, the 
royalty which they are refusing to pay, the royalty which this 
amendment insulates them from paying, represents, in every instance, 
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the revenue of each of the 
companies--less than one-tenth of 1 percent, sometimes even smaller 
amounts.
  Why in the world are we fighting this battle? Profitable companies, 
multibillion-dollar companies, coming on our land, drilling oil for 
their profit, have to come to the Senate to put on an amendment to 
insulate them from paying their fair rental, their fair royalty for 
drilling oil? There are those who say: For goodness sakes, Senators, 
aren't there some other things you could debate? Yes, I suppose. When 
it gets down to it, the money, in the scheme of a $1.7 trillion 
national budget, may get lost, $66 million a year, $5.6 million a 
month. But there is something that won't get lost. That is the simple 
justice of this debate, a question of fairness, a question of common 
sense.
  As much as those on the other side would like to obfuscate this issue 
and tell us it is certainly so complicated, beyond the ken and mind of 
any Member of the Senate, they are just plain wrong. We have received 
correspondence from the Secretary of the Interior. We have seen 
editorial support in USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, articles in the 
Wall Street Journal, learned, expert people who have said this is 
pretty simple. This is a rip-off for American taxpayers.
  I have to say to the Senator from California, I am glad she is waging 
this battle, as uncomfortable as it may be to my colleagues in the 
Senate, to try, once and for all, to say that if we are going to hold 
individual Americans, families, and businesses responsible for their 
tax liability on April 15, then, for goodness sakes, these 
multibillion-dollar oil companies should pay their fair share under the 
law for drilling oil on our land. They have been tested in court time 
and again and found guilty. Whistleblowers have come forward. Yet this 
amendment, the Hutchison amendment, will perpetuate this rip-off.
  I know some will argue that there are other issues of importance. I 
hope that in the boardrooms of these oil companies they would please 
reflect on this battle. Is this really worth it? Is this really worth 
it to the big oil companies. Sixty-six million in a multibillion-dollar 
company wouldn't make a ripple on their balance sheet. But for them to 
be in a position, as they are today, of trying to defend the 
indefensible, a position where they have lost time and again in court, 
trying to say they can use up our Federal resources without paying for 
them, is just incomprehensible.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a final question and perhaps 
retain the remainder--I would like him to speak again --I wanted to 
make a point. There is a chart up there on the Long Beach jury verdict 
where Harry Anderson, one of the most important whistleblowers, was 
quoted. That isn't even a case about Federal royalties. This debate, I 
want to point it out, is about Federal royalties. The one case they 
ever won was based on State royalties. You don't have to pay your State 
royalties based on fair market value.
  I thank my friend.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this 
afternoon. This money going to the Land and Water Conservation Fund has 
been so important to the State of Nevada. Lake Tahoe, which we share 
with the

[[Page 22341]]

State of California, has received, from the work that I have been able 
to do since I have been fortunate enough to be in the Senate, tens of 
millions of dollars from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to 
purchase environmentally sensitive land, land that would have been 
subdivided, land that would have been overrun with problems. Now this 
land is in beautiful, pristine wilderness.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been extremely important to 
the State of Nevada. This gives me an opportunity, because of how 
important the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been to the State of 
Nevada, to talk about the State of Nevada. People do not understand the 
State of Nevada.
  Coincidentally, there was an article in today's Reno Gazette Journal. 
That is a Gannett newspaper in Reno, NV. This is a major story, 
coincidentally, in today's newspaper. There is a picture of a beautiful 
area. Below it are the words, in large print: Many don't associate 
Nevada with beauty. But if they do some exploring, one of the many 
sites that will take their breath away is the Arc Dome Wilderness.
  As is said in this article: One of the many sites that will take 
their breath away is the Arc Dome Wilderness.
  The State of Nevada is seen by many as a place to dump nuclear waste, 
a place to set off nuclear weapons, nuclear devices. The State of 
Nevada is the most mountainous State in the Union except for Alaska. We 
have, in the State of Nevada, 314 separate, distinct mountain ranges. 
In the State of Nevada, we have 32 mountains over 11,000 feet high. 
Just outside Las Vegas--if you could walk it, it would be about 10 
miles--you would come to a mountain that is almost 11,000 feet high. 
Nevada is a unique State. It is a very large State. It is a State that 
has magnificent views.
  What people also don't understand is, we are fortunate. When I first 
came here, Nevada was the only State that had not done its Forest 
Service wilderness designation, the only State. I introduced 
legislation. It took a number of years, but we, in the State of Nevada, 
have created a beautiful Forest Service wilderness.
  That means we have preserved areas in the State of Nevada in their 
pristine state. These are areas that my children, my children's 
children can go to, and these areas are the same as they were 100 years 
ago. In the process of doing the legislation for the wilderness in the 
State of Nevada, I, of course, toured the State of Nevada and looked at 
every wilderness site. After the legislation was introduced, I sent 
staff to talk to local people because, of course, with rare exception--
although there are two wilderness areas, one right outside Las Vegas 
and one right outside Reno--with rare exception, these wilderness areas 
are located in remote areas of the State of Nevada, rural areas in the 
State of Nevada. I sent staff out to visit with these people in rural 
Nevada to talk to them about wilderness.
  I got a call from one of my staff members. She said: It is 
interesting; I am in Ely, and they believe you should back off your 
wilderness--and I had heard that story lots of times. She said: They 
think you should create a national park. I said: A national park? She 
said: Yes, that is what they think should be done.
  I didn't realize at the time that there had been for almost 60 years 
an effort to create a national park in the State of Nevada. A long-time 
Nevada Senator by the name of Key Pittman, who became the chairman of 
the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate--and was, at the outbreak 
of World War I, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee--sent a man, 
a forest ranger, to take a look at where would be a good place in 
Nevada to have a national park. This man traveled to Nevada. His name 
was Mott. He found a place. He reported to Key Pittman.
  Key Pittman went to the President. To make a long story somewhat 
short, there were efforts made over the decades to create a national 
park in Nevada. It failed every time. Mining interests, ranching 
interests, they couldn't work it out. Well, I took the advice of my 
staff person, and the people in White Pine County, and created a 
national park legislatively. I offered legislation to take it out of 
the wilderness designation and create a national park. We created a 
national park. It is now a law that has passed the U.S. Congress, 
signed by the President, and it is a beautiful park--Great Basin 
National Park.
  It is in a very remote area. It is over the border of the State of 
Utah. It is about 720 miles from Ely, NV. It is a place that everybody 
should go. What is there? The oldest living thing in the world is 
located there. The bristle cone pine tree is over 5,000 years old. 
These pine trees in this national park were growing when Caesar was 
around. These pine trees were old when Christ was on the earth. You can 
go to the Great Basin National Park and see them and feel them. They 
are there. They are still growing. On this national park is Nevada's 
only glacier. We have a glacier in Nevada at our Great Basin National 
Park. Every different thing that is found in the Great Basin is found 
in this national park. It is a wonder of nature, from the towering 
Wheeler Peak to the base of it, which is high desert. It is a wonderful 
place. It is a place where people can walk.
  We certainly need to do more things in all of our national parks to 
make them better places for visitors, although Great Basin is very 
nice. I would love to have a great new visitor center there, and we 
need an interpretive site.
  The Senator from California has gone, but I say, with land and water 
conservation moneys we are going to build in various areas in our 
national parks beautiful visitor centers. That is important, and we 
should be able to do that.
  A bit of the ice age exists in the form of this glacier. As I 
indicated, it is the only one of its kind, not only in Nevada but in 
the Great Basin. It is a mere token of what the ice age was, but in 
Nevada it still exists in the Great Basin National Park. It calls to 
mind the powerful glaciers capped at Snake Range only a few thousand 
years ago. Glacial activity is easy to find. Piles of glacial debris 
form mounds and ridges and lakes.
  I failed to mention, in these parks are wonderful little lakes; they 
are turquoise blue. I have been there, and I have seen them. They are 
ice cold. We call them Theresa and Stella Lakes. They occupy hollows 
that were gouged out during the ice age. This national park is just 
unbelievably nice. I talk about Nevada having 32 mountain peaks over 
11,000 feet high. Wheeler Peak is 13,000 feet high. I think that is 
really important, that we have Wheeler Peak, which is over 13,000 feet 
high, the second highest peak in the State. It is just really quite 
unbelievable that we have Wheeler Peak where it is.
  The bristle cone pines we talked about being there at the time of 
Caesar and at the time of Christ. When they were building the pyramids, 
these trees were growing.
  This is interesting. We had a cowboy out riding his horse one day, 
and he was looking up, and he suddenly dropped through ground into this 
huge cavern, and now these caverns are part of the Great Basin National 
Park, called Lehman Caves. It has a separate entrance, a wonderful 
place. You can look at stalactites and stalagmites, and it is as dark 
as anything could be. We have that there.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. I am happy to.
  Mr. DORGAN. I have listened with some interest not only to the 
Senator from Nevada but to other of my colleagues who are speaking 
about the issue before the Senate. I know the Senator from Nevada is 
talking about the budget problems we have. The fact is, we don't have 
enough money for education, health care, and a range of things. That is 
why we have not had the appropriations bills brought to the floor for 
those areas. The Senator from Nevada is talking about those issues.
  The issue that has been raised by the Senator from California is the 
issue of royalties paid with respect to the extraction of oil. My 
understanding of this issue--and I know there has been a discussion of 
it at some length here--is

[[Page 22342]]

that in integrated oil companies, where you have oil companies raising 
oil and then selling it to themselves, the value of the oil they are 
pulling from the ground is an issue they largely decide and report to 
the Government and say: By the way, that oil didn't have much value; 
therefore, I am not going to pay you much in royalties.
  So when the folks get out there and look at these sweetheart 
transactions from companies which own each other, one to another, they 
discover that this oil has been radically undervalued, and the 
interests that have been denied the rightful opportunities here are the 
American public; the American people haven't gotten their royalties. 
They have not received the fair amount of royalties. When the oilers go 
look at this, they say, you can't do that, you can't undervalue this, 
and therefore cheat the public out of what is theirs.
  I guess the dispute here is a circumstance where someday we want that 
to continue to exist: Let them continue to sell oil to themselves, and 
price the way they want to, and avoid paying royalties.
  The Senator from Nevada makes the point that when we do that, we end 
up not getting the money we should get for the American public, and 
these royalties belong to the public. Second, we don't have the 
resources we need, then, to make the investments in children, health 
care, and other things. That is the point, I think, the Senator from 
Nevada makes.
  I find it interesting. I was a State tax administrator in the State 
of North Dakota before I came to this body, and I will give you another 
example that is almost exactly like this. We had to value railroads. We 
had to establish a value on railroads for tax purposes. The railroads 
said to the State of North Dakota, well, the value of the railroads is 
computed by describing all of the stock and all of the debt, assuming 
you bought all the stock and assumed the debt. That is what the 
railroads told the State. The railroads said: By the way, the value of 
our stock is par value, which is printed on the certificate. Of course, 
that is not the value of the stock. But for many years the State of 
North Dakota accepted par value on the stock as representative of the 
value of the railroad. They radically underpaid their taxes because of 
it.
  When I became tax administrator, having taken a look at that, I 
decided that was not going to stand. Of course, the railroads didn't 
like it at all when we changed the method. That is exactly what is at 
stake here with respect to the oil companies. They sell oil to 
themselves and underprice it so they can avoid paying royalties to the 
American people, who are owed these royalties, and they don't want this 
interrupted. They say: We don't want to change the way we are doing 
this; we like it. Of course they like it, because they are not paying 
the royalties they owe to the American people.
  The Senator from Nevada makes the point that it is not fair.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me reclaim my time and say to my friend 
from North Dakota, as I indicated earlier, the reason I was so 
impressed with what the Senator from California has done is that a 
portion of these royalties currently goes to the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund for Federal land acquisition. That is what I have 
talked about here. I think it is so important.
  I see my friend from Iowa and my friend from North Dakota. I know 
they have both been to Lake Tahoe, which the Senators from Nevada and 
California share. Now, that is a beautiful place. It has remained as 
beautiful as it is because we have been able to take money in years 
gone by from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to buy land around 
there. As a result of that, we are making progress and saving that 
pristine land. It is not pristine now, but we are saving that beautiful 
lake, and we want to stop degradation from taking place. That is why, 
from my standpoint, these royalties are so important, because they go 
into land and water conservation moneys which for us in the State of 
Nevada are so important.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have a statement and then a question. I thank the 
Senator for what he said about the land and water conservation funds 
because we use those in Iowa, too. Every dollar taken out, by losing it 
to the oil companies, is something we don't get to use to save some of 
our hunting grounds and fishing grounds.
  Mr. REID. I want to say one other thing to my friend. I know he has 
another question or two he wants to ask. When we don't have money in 
that Land and Water Conservation Fund, that makes for difficulty in 
other areas. I mentioned briefly that we only have one national park in 
Nevada, and in Iowa I doubt if you have one.
  Mr. HARKIN. We don't even have one.
  Mr. REID. You know, the national parks all over America--and I know 
the Senator has traveled to them and has seen them--need restoration; 
they need to be refurbished. We need to rebuild. Every year that goes 
by and more people visit them, there is more wear and tear on them. 
That is why the land and water conservation money is an offset. It is a 
tremendous help to us.
  Does the Senator have another question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. I especially want to thank the 
Senator from California for her great leadership, and the Senator from 
Illinois who was making statements earlier. The Senator from Nevada has 
again put a finger on why we need to close this loophole and why what 
is happening right now is grossly unfair. It has come to my attention. 
I am not an expert on oil and all that kind of stuff. At least it is my 
understanding.
  Mr. REID. We have more oil in Nevada than in Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am sure.
  Mr. REID. We don't have much.
  Mr. HARKIN. But we have a different form. It is called ethanol. I 
will get to that in a second.
  Let me ask the Senator, I understand this loophole that allows a 
handful of oil companies to keep from paying their fair share of taxes 
for what is owed the Government--it is only just a few, and most of the 
oil companies pay their fair share. Is that right?
  Mr. REID. I have listened to the debate. I heard the Senator from 
Illinois and the Senator from California enter into an exchange saying 
that it is only about 5 percent of the companies that do not pay the 
right amount of money.
  Mr. HARKIN. Doesn't it strike us as odd that 95 percent of the oil 
companies are good citizens? They pay their honest taxes. There are 
honest royalties. Yet we get 5 percent of the largest who are skirting 
the law, who are doing this, and keeping us from collecting the 
royalties that help us with our Land and Water Conservation Fund. So we 
are talking about 5 percent, a handful of the largest of all the oil 
companies.
  I ask my friend from Nevada, what sense does this make? Why would we 
excuse 5 percent of the largest when we stick it to the smaller oil 
companies and make them pay their royalties? If we are going to do 
this, why not do it for all of them?
  Second, we heard the Senator from North Dakota talking about how the 
railroads were putting up their value as par value, and he changed that 
when he became tax commissioner. I was thinking about that. I wonder if 
anyone has ever offered to buy a railroad at par value and whether they 
would sell it. I want to ask the Senator from Nevada, as to these oil 
companies, does the Senator think I could as a private individual--if I 
wanted to get an oil jobber and go buy oil--buy oil from those 
companies at the value they placed on this, at which they paid 
royalties?
  Mr. REID. I think not.
  Mr. HARKIN. I don't think so. If I am wrong, someone please correct 
me because I would like to go out and buy some of that oil. I think I 
could turn it into a pretty handsome profit. I believe in the profit 
incentive. But you know darned well that you can't bill that oil at 
that price. They sell it to themselves at that price, and that is how 
they are getting out of paying the Government their fair share of 
royalties.
  I also have to ask the Senator from Nevada, I understand what the 
Senator

[[Page 22343]]

from California is attempting to do is not to impose any kind of new 
tax--this is not a new tax, as I understand it--on the oil companies.
  Mr. REID. The Senator is absolutely right.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is not a new tax. It is a matter of having a handful 
of these companies pay what they owe. Is that correct?
  Mr. REID. That is absolutely true.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is not a new tax. It is something they have known that 
they have had to pay all along and that they are supposed to pay.
  All, I guess, the Interior bill does is clarify the rules so they 
will pay their fair share, as I understand it. The amendment of the 
Senator from Texas stops this from happening. It lets the oil companies 
continue to underpay their royalties. Is that right?
  Mr. REID. That is right.
  Mr. HARKIN. I saw this figure. I can't attest to this. I thought this 
was pretty interesting--``Big Oil's Big Rip-off.'' The Hutchison 
amendment has already cost us $66 million in lost royalties, according 
to the Interior Department. Is that right? Already, to date, according 
to the Interior Department, taxpayers have lost $88 million. When you 
add the Hutchison amendment on that, it will cost us $154 million, 
according to the Interior Department. Is that correct?
  Mr. REID. The reason I came, I say to my friend, and the reason I am 
so interested in this is that we are desperate for money in the West. I 
am sure it is accordingly so in other places. We have so much in the 
way of public land. We are desperate for money to make sure some of our 
nice places remain that way.
  In all due respect to my friend from Iowa, his State was settled long 
before Nevada. The reason he does not have national parks and 
wilderness areas is because it is all private land. I don't in any way 
denigrate what has happened to the State of Iowa. But we in the West 
still have public lands that we want to try to add to and protect. We 
are having difficulty doing that because we don't have the money as the 
Federal Government, which is the caretaker. We don't have the money to 
not only add to it a little bit but take care of what we have.
  Mr. HARKIN. Where do these royalties go? They don't go into the 
general coffers.
  Mr. REID. They go to a number of places. But the track of money I 
have followed goes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which the 
President, thank goodness, is fighting to put some money into.
  We have not had enough money for the Federal Government to stop 
development in Montana. There was an agreement made to buy a large mine 
there because they thought it would be detrimental to the national park 
that is right there. Yellowstone, they thought, didn't need that there. 
As a result of that, the Federal Government didn't have any money to 
buy it, even though they made the deal to buy it. This $154 million 
would allow them to do that. A lot could be done with that.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator that we in Iowa are trying now to 
reclaim some of the Loess Hills. It is a wonderful natural phenomenon. 
It takes place in only two areas on Earth--here and in China. We are 
trying to reclaim these and make them a preserved area.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator explain what has happened in China and 
Iowa?
  Mr. HARKIN. This is over centuries, thousands of years ago, tens of 
thousands of years ago, the winds blew and they blew up these huge 
mounds of fine dirt. There are only two places to this extent. One is 
here and one is in China. These are a natural phenomenon. They are 
beautiful, very scenic, and we are trying to reclaim them and preserve 
them for future generations. This money could help do that.
  I guess that is why I wanted to ask the Senator the question because 
he caught my attention when we talked about parks. We don't have 
national parks in Iowa. But we do have things such as the Loess Hills, 
Effigy Mounds, and some fishing and hunting areas that get money from 
the Water and Conservation Fund--and historic preservation.
  I am constrained on this. I am a big supporter of ethanol because 
ethanol is clean. We grow it. It is renewable. We don't have to import 
it from other countries. I have always thought that ethanol could 
compete fairly with oil. There is a provision in the law that gives a 
certain tax credit for the use of ethanol in gasoline.
  One of the Senators from Texas has always gone after it saying 
ethanol should not get any tax breaks; it should stand on its own two 
feet and compete against oil. I took the floor one time, I say to my 
friend from Nevada, and I said: Fine. Let's go back and recapture all 
of the tax breaks that all of the oil companies have gotten for the 
last 50 or 60 years. And how about the tax breaks they get now? How 
about this? If this doesn't amount to a tax break for big oil, I don't 
know what does. They want to keep that but they want to take away the 
small amount of tax credit that we have for ethanol.
  I want to get that off my chest because I hear these oil State 
Senators coming in here all the time telling me that we can't provide 
any kind of tax incentive for the use of ethanol because we don't for 
oil. Nonsense. This proves it right here.
  Mr. REID. Let me say to my friend, as someone from the State of 
Nevada, we don't grow a great deal. We grow alfalfa. We are the largest 
producer of white onions in the United States. But other than that, we 
don't produce a lot in the way of agricultural products--certainly a 
lot less than we used to because of the growth in the Las Vegas area. 
So it was a hard sell to me to accept ethanol being something that was 
good for our country because it was hard for me to accept that we could 
grow something and stick it in a car and burn it.
  But what persuaded me--I am now an advocate for ethanol--is that it 
is renewable. We have this ability in the United States to grow crops. 
We don't grow crops in Nevada as they grow them in the Midwest, in 
Iowa. But if we burn up a tank of ethanol this year, then next year 
there is some more ethanol and we can burn up some more. It is not the 
same as fossil fuel. That is a selling point to me.
  I say to my friend from Iowa that another reason I was willing to 
come here on the Boxer postcloture activities is that we don't get 
enough opportunity around here to talk about things.
  I am happy to hear the Senator from Iowa talk about some areas in the 
State of Iowa that are environmentally important. The Senator has 
talked about them. I would love to visit Iowa. I came to the floor 
today to talk about the beauty in the State of Nevada. I invite the 
Senator from Iowa to spend a few days with me in Nevada. We will go on 
a pack trip; we will go into some of the beautiful wilderness areas.
  People fly over the State of Nevada. It looks like one big desert. It 
is not. We have wilderness areas. In the Reno newspaper, they talk 
about one wilderness area called Arc Dome. We have heard about mountain 
sheep, but in Nevada we have mountain goats. We have beaver. We have 
eagles floating through the valleys, antelope, elk.
  People don't realize Nevada is more than the bright lights of Las 
Vegas and Reno. We need more time to talk about our various States. We 
tend to come to the floor and get involved in things that do not allow 
Members the opportunity to educate each other about their States.
  Mr. HARKIN. Today, I learned a lot about the beauty of Nevada. I will 
take the Senator up on his offer to visit.
  Mr. REID. The invitation is open, and I hope my friend will invite me 
to Iowa to look at the natural phenomenon in his State.
  Mr. HARKIN. Secretary Babbitt came to Iowa and visited the Loess 
Hills area. He never knew they were there. No one ever talked about it. 
We are trying to preserve them.
  Let me, again, ask the Senator from Nevada, there was an editorial in 
USA Today.
  Mr. REID. I have the time. Please proceed. I yield for a question.
  Mr. HARKIN. There is an editorial in the USA Today, August 26 of last 
year, entitled, ``Time to clean up Big Oil's slick deal with 
Congress.'' They are

[[Page 22344]]

talking about this very item, ripping off the taxpayers. ``According to 
the watchdog project on government oversight, there is more than $2 
billion in uncollected Federal royalties at open market prices, and the 
total grows by more than $1 million every week.''
  This editorial, along with an editorial that appeared in the Los 
Angeles Times of July 20 of this year, gave an indication of how much 
money was given by the oil companies in campaign contributions. Big oil 
contributed more than $35 million to national political committees and 
congressional candidates in this time over the last 12 years.
  I question no one's motives on this floor. I never question anyone's 
motives. I say this is another indication of why we need campaign 
finance reform.
  Mr. THOMAS. I raise a point of order it is not germane to what we are 
talking about. It is not germane to what this discussion is about.
  Mr. REID. I have the floor and I am happy to respond to that.
  We have at great length here today talked about the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, how it is tied into the question of royalties. 
Certainly that is about as germane as it could be.
  Mr. THOMAS. Campaign finance reform----
  Mr. REID. I have an hour's time, and I have spoken in germane terms 
to the matter now before the Senate. If the question is asked and goes 
on to some other subject matter, we can't be----
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order. Could I have a 
determination?
  Mr. HARKIN. May I be heard on the point of order, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada does have the floor, 
but I think he has a responsibility to make sure the questions that are 
being raised in this colloquy are relevant to the issues before the 
Senate today.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the statement.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I say it is absolutely 
relevant to the issue of oil companies, royalties, and how much they 
are paying, to say that Senators ought to have the right to defend 
their interests and to defend companies in their States.
  I don't question Senator Hutchison or anybody else is doing this in 
good conscience. They have their case to argue. That is fair. What I am 
saying, when we get editorials such as this that point out how much 
money has come from oil companies to the campaign coffers of the people 
making this debate, it demeans the whole debate. That is my point. I 
think the Senator would agree with me on that.
  My question is, this is tied into this debate. We could have a much 
better debate if we had that.
  Mr. REID. If I can respond to the question, the subject matter of 
that editorial is the amendment that is now before this body. It is not 
on another subject. That is the subject matter of this editorial, on 
the matter now before this body.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent this editorial be printed in the 
Record.
  Mr. THOMAS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that an article appearing in the 
Los Angeles Times dated July 20--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial, 
dated Wednesday, August 26, entitled, ``Time to clean up Big Oil's 
slick deal with Congress,'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From USA Today, Aug. 26, 1998]

          Time to Clean Up Big Oil's Slick Deal With Congress

       Imagine being able to compute your own rent payments and 
     grocery bills, giving your-self a 3% to 10% discount off the 
     market price. Over time, that would add up to really big 
     bucks. And imagine having the political clout to make sure 
     nothing threatened to change that cozy arrangement.
       According to government and private studies, that's the 
     sweet deal the oil industry is fighting to protect the right 
     to extract crude oil from public land and pay the government 
     no the open market price but a lower ``posted price''--based 
     on private deals the oil companies can manipulate for their 
     own benefit.
       States, Native American tribes and landowners are suing for 
     the full open-market-price fees, and a few oil companies have 
     begun to cut settlement deals from Alabama to New Mexico 
     rather than face trial. Accordingly to the watchdog Project 
     on Government Oversight, there's more than $2 billion in 
     uncollected federal royalties at open market prices. And the 
     total grows by more than $1 million every week.
       No wonder the industry is pouring money into the campaign 
     coffers of senators and congressmen willing to help protect 
     the status quo. Oil-patch lawmakers have been playing tag 
     team with amendments that bar the Interior Department from 
     implementing new rules to require payment at the open market 
     price.
       Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, for one, is so valued 
     by the industry that even though she's only been in 
     Washington five years, she's already the No. 2 recipient of 
     oil-producer cash over the past 12 years.
       Big Oil has contributed more than $35 million to national 
     political committees and congressional candidates in the 
     time--a modest investment in protecting the royalty-pricing 
     arrangement that's enabled the industry to pocket an extra $2 
     billion.
       That's millions missing in action from the battle to reduce 
     the federal deficit and from accounts for land and water 
     conservation, historic preservation and several Native 
     American tribes. In addition, public schools in 24 states 
     have been shortchanged: States use their share of federal 
     royalties for education funding.
       Meanwhile, the industry seeks to change the subject, 
     lobbying to force Uncle Sam to take royalties in oil instead 
     of dollars. That would put the government in the oil 
     business, where it doesn't belong, but not change the 
     slippery method of figuring companies' bills.
       Having profited so long by being able to fiddle with the 
     price, now the companies and their congressional pets 
     complain that paying what they really owe would be unfair.
       But the taxpayers have been getting the unfair end of this 
     deal for far too long. One major producer, Atlantic 
     Richfield, has already adopted market pricing for calculating 
     its royalty payments. Congress, instead of protecting 
     industry recalcitrants and campaign contributors, should 
     protect the public interest.


                          Big Oil's influence

       Top congressional recipients of oil-producer political 
     action committee contributions between January 1987 and March 
     1998:
       Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas: $198,337.
       Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas: $175,199.
       Sen. John Breaux, D-La. $174,800.
       Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla: $171,999.
       Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska: $171,025.

  Mr. REID. I do want to say we are very proud of the wilderness areas 
we have in Nevada. Let me name them: Alta Toquima Wilderness, 38,000 
acres; Arc Dome Wilderness, which is the largest, it covers 150,000 
acres; Mount Charleston Wilderness, right outside the city of Las 
Vegas, covers the Spring Mountain Range and is almost 11,000 feet high; 
Mount Rose Wilderness, likewise, located just outside Reno. You can see 
it from Reno when you go there. Table Mountain Wilderness, and I have 
traveled almost every bit of that, is a wonderfully unique place. 
Currant Mountain Wildness is near the Great Basin National Park. The 
East Humboldts Wilderness is 37,000 acres. Here we have a herd of 
shaggy mountain goats which you can see there, with a small cirque lake 
and the 11,000 foot peak. Grant Range Wilderness, not far from Las 
Vegas, is a 50,000 acre area; Jarbidge Wilderness, a beautiful, 
wonderful area, you can still go there and pick up flint stones. You 
can pick up arrowheads. I went there for the first time in August, and 
the snow had not melted yet. It was beautiful.
  Mount Moriah Wilderness is located near the Utah border; Quinn Canyon 
Wilderness is located in eastern Nevada, 27,000 acres. Ruby Mountain 
Wilderness has skiing. Land at the top in a helicopter, ski down the 
mountain, and come out where there is no wilderness. Santa Rosa 
Mountain Wilderness, also very remote; and finally, Boundary Peak 
Wilderness on the California-Nevada border is a mountain more than 
13,000 feet high, which is the highest mountain in the State of Nevada.
  My friend from Massachusetts has a question, I understand.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will be kind enough to yield for a 
question.
  Mr. President, as I understand, half of the royalty is returned to 
the States. Is the Senator familiar with

[[Page 22345]]

the fact that the amounts that are actually returned to the States go 
directly for the cause of education, the education funds of these 
States?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, who is the ranking member of the 
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and who has spent so 
much time working on education issues, trying to find money, as I know 
the ranking member has done--trying to find money to fund education 
programs all over America--yes, $66 million. As the Senator from Iowa 
indicated, it could go up to $154 million. Think what we could do with 
that share of education moneys, with the programs he has authorized in 
his committee but we have no ability to fund.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I want to just raise this issue since, by and large, the 
majority of the States use the resources that come from this royalty 
for education. If the amendment of the Senator is carried, then they 
are going to be denied funding in a number of these States, some 24 
different States. I think it is important to recognize--
  Mr. THOMAS. I raise a point of order. Would the Senator please 
explain the question exchange? I am sorry, I don't understand this.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to be heard on this.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator complete his question to the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The point is, if the royalty money is not available to 
the States, does the Senator understand that money is going to have to 
be made up in some other way and otherwise we are going to have 
cutbacks in education in the States?
  Mr. REID. I have been waiting for the Senator from Massachusetts to 
come because I was hoping he would ask this question.
  We in Nevada know more than anyplace in America how difficult it is 
to fund education. I say to my friend, does he realize in Nevada we 
hold the record? In Clark County, we dedicated and built 18 schools in 
1 year. No school district in America has ever come close to that. We 
need schools. I say to my friend from Massachusetts, in Las Vegas we 
have to build one school every month to keep up with the growth. We are 
the eighth largest school district in America. We have well over 
200,000 kids in our school districts.
  So I say, absolutely, the money that would come from this would help 
the people in Nevada and the rest of the people in the country. I don't 
know how I could be more direct in my answer to the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I again want to ask the Senator: As I understand it, for 
example, the total share of the royalty funds that goes to the State of 
California, 100 percent, goes to public education of children in 
California. Does the Senator understand in Colorado it is some 60 
percent, 100 percent in Louisiana? Those would be funds, if this 
amendment were carried, that would be directly denied to the public 
school system in those States and would have to be made up, or 
otherwise there would be cuts in those particular States. Does the 
Senator understand the relationship between what we are talking about 
here and the issue on education? It is very significant.
  Maybe $60 million does not make a lot of difference to some Senators. 
But it could make a lot of difference if we were talking about the 
Reading Excellence Act which has just been cut over in House 
Appropriations. It makes a difference to 330,000 children--whether they 
are going to learn how to read.
  We have those examples across the board: Colorado, 60 percent; North 
Dakota, 57 percent. Has there been any discussion on the floor of the 
Senate by those Senators on how they are going to make up the money? It 
seems to me we ought to have at least that kind of information. If you 
are going to cut out that funding for public education in the schools--
and that is what this amendment does--we ought to understand where the 
other money is going to come from because you are taking it right out 
of public school education.
  I do not know what the Senator's conclusions are, but when we realize 
we are dealing with the appropriations bill that is the last bill on 
the agenda, it maybe doesn't have a very high priority. Maybe that is 
one of the reason it has not been talked about very much by the 
Republicans, those on the other side. But this is money that comes 
right out of public education. It comes right out of support for public 
education in a number of these States.
  Mr. REID. I say, in answer----
  Mr. KENNEDY. I was just asking the Senator how these States are going 
to make up for it. Can the Senator help us?
  Mr. REID. The Senator has asked a couple questions.
  First of all, no, there has not been a single word on this Senate 
floor about where the makeup would be for this money. The fact is, as 
with most education issues that have come up since the majority has 
been controlling this place, they just ignore it. They don't worry 
about it.
  I say, in answer to my friend from Massachusetts, yes, we have a lot 
of children--more children who are not going to be able to read, the 
more we cut back on these moneys. But I say to my friend, we have 3,000 
children dropping out of high school every day in America. Couldn't we 
use a few of these dollars to come up with some programs to keep these 
kids in school?
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator from Nevada yield to me for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Because I think it dovetails with the Senator's question 
about the States.
  I say to my friends from Massachusetts and Nevada, maybe some 
Senators on this floor do not care about this, but the States do care 
about this. The States have sued the oil companies because of this 
continuous undervaluation of these oil royalty payments. I say to my 
friend, it is outrageous that we do not fix this problem today. The 
States have sued to the tune of $5 billion because they need this 
money.
  What we will do, if this amendment is agreed to, I say to both of my 
friends, is continue this undervaluation, continue these lawsuits where 
the States have to sue, rather than allow Secretary Babbitt and the 
Interior Department to fix this problem.
  I am so glad the Senator has yielded to my friend from Massachusetts. 
I wanted to know if he was aware of these valuations and if he would 
ask unanimous consent to have these facts printed in the Record.
  Mr. REID. I would have to say to my friend from California, I knew of 
dollars but I did not know of the tremendous amounts: The State of 
California, $345 million, unbelievable; Texas, $30 million; New Mexico, 
a small State, think of what could happen in the State of New Mexico 
with $6 million; Alabama, $15 million; Louisiana $400 million.
  As I understand, these moneys come from lawsuits where the oil 
companies settled. There was not a trial where a verdict was rendered 
or a judgment rendered. They paid up when they found that they were 
doing wrong. And all this money, based upon what the Senator from 
California has so aptly described earlier in her statements on the 
Senate floor, and what the Senator from Massachusetts said--every 
dollar of this money goes to public education. States break it up 
differently, the Senator said--California, 100 percent; North Dakota, 
56 percent--but that is a lot of money for those States.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I was interested in the Senator's viewpoint. At the very 
time we are meeting here, this very time this afternoon, the House 
appropriators are marking up the education bill. They have just cut $60 
million out of the reading programs, the Reading Excellence Act, which 
would affect 330,000 children. This is what we are talking about.
  Does the Senator agree with me that we have a limited role in public 
education? We provide 7 cents out of every dollar in education, but we 
provide it in targeted areas to try to begin to make some difference in 
local communities and in States so these efforts can be carried on and 
expanded if they are worthwhile. We have the Reading Excellence Act, 
which is just beginning to take hold, just beginning to make a 
difference. Mr. President, $60 million is a big hunk of change, and 
that is what this amounts to in total revenues--$66 million.

[[Page 22346]]

  I just want to inquire of the Senator so the membership understands. 
When we refuse to defeat the Hutchison amendment, we are going to be 
disadvantaging States in the public education system.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend in response to the question, he made a 
very good point. The Federal Government, in my opinion, does not do 
enough to help public education. It does not do enough. Seven percent 
is not enough. But at least we do something. Every dollar we send to 
the school districts is badly needed.
  But in answer to the question of the Senator, this money goes to the 
school districts. They can spend it in any way they want. Isn't that 
right?
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is my understanding.
  Mr. REID. The Federal Government is not saying you must spend it in a 
certain way. The State of California, by law and regulations of the 
State of California, is required to spend this money in any way they 
want on public education?
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is absolutely correct. If the Hutchison amendment 
is accepted here, these will be the results. Effectively, we are going 
to be seeing an important source of funding for public education, for 
the schools in these several States, being denied.
  Does the Senator agree with me that most of the responsibilities we 
have are on priorities, on making choices?
  Mr. REID. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator understand the choice to be on the 
issue of education? If we accept the amendment of the Senator from 
Texas, we are going to have, as a corresponding result, important 
reductions in support of public education in a number of States; is 
that the Senator's understanding?
  Mr. REID. And it will not be made up anyplace else.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator think we are going to make it up at the 
Federal level in terms of appropriations? Has there been any 
suggestion?
  Mr. REID. We see what is happening in the House as we speak. We have 
seen what has happened in the last several years: Education is being 
ratcheted down. There are some, I say to my friend, who want to destroy 
public education, and this is a step in that direction.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. It is important the Membership have 
a full understanding of the impact of the Hutchison amendment on 
education.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the questions from my friend from 
Massachusetts. One reason, before the Senator leaves the floor, that I 
think this is so important is this money does not go to any one place. 
I talked about the importance of the money and doing something about 
the natural beauty in our States. The Senator asked a series of 
questions that indicated a large chunk of this money will go to public 
education, and as far as this Senator is concerned, I do not think 
there is anything more important than public education and protecting 
our natural resources. That is, in effect, what the Senator from 
California is attempting to do: Focus attention on these moneys that 
would go to these very important issues, such as the national park we 
have in Nevada, such as the 14 wilderness areas we have in Nevada, and 
the many educational programs.
  I ask the Chair how much of the Senator's hour is remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while we are talking about education, I say 
to my colleagues that I have worked with the Senator from New Mexico, 
Mr. Bingaman, on some very important legislation. The Senator from 
Massachusetts and I just touched upon it. It deals with dropouts.
  As the Presiding Officer has heard me say, every day in America 3,000 
children drop out of high school, half a million a year. Every one of 
those children who drop out of school are less than they can be. They 
are going to be less productive to themselves and to their families. 
They are going to add to the cost of Government in education, in 
welfare, and our criminal justice system.
  Mr. President, 84 percent of the men and women in the prisons around 
America have not graduated from high school. So are high school 
dropouts a priority? Yes, they are.
  The Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, and I have introduced 
legislation to create, within the Department of Education, a dropout 
czar who would work on programs around the country to keep kids in 
school and not force any of these programs on local school districts, 
but have them available with challenge grants and other opportunities 
for schools to step in and see if they can help keep some of their kids 
in schools. It will cost a few dollars to do this. We need to do it. 
This will allow us to have moneys to do that.
  I say keeping children in school is important. We have programs 
around the country that work. Let's try to pattern what we do after the 
programs that work and keep some of these kids in school. I cannot 
think of anything more important, as it relates to education, than 
keeping these kids in school. We are not going to keep all 3,000 
children from dropping out every day, but let's say every day instead 
of 3,000 children on average dropping out, 2,800 drop out. We will keep 
200 children in high school every day. Think how many that will add up 
to in a school year: Kids who have a better opportunity to do what they 
are capable of doing and not adding to the criminal justice system, not 
being part of the statistics. Eighty-four percent of the people in 
prison did not graduate from high school. We need to do better in that 
regard.
  Also, we need to do better with our natural resources. We need to do 
something about the multibillion-dollar backlog in our national parks. 
We are closing parts of our national parks because we cannot 
rehabilitate them the way they need to be rehabilitated. Some of these 
areas are becoming dangerous for people to walk in.
  What we do with our personnel in our U.S. park system is something we 
should not brag about. Employees of the National Park System are living 
in Quonset huts from the Second World War. We have to provide housing 
for these people. A lot of these parks, just like Great Basin, are very 
remote. The nearest town from the Great Basin is 70 miles away. These 
people are living in conditions I do not think you want your children 
living in. These jobs are coveted. They go to school to become a park 
ranger. They love their work. We should provide adequate housing for 
them because a lot of times it does not exist.
  I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I appreciate the 
questions from the Senators from North Dakota, Massachusetts, 
California, and Iowa. I hope this debate has been educational to other 
Members of the Senate.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, what is the situation with regard to time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has an hour.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. I want to make a few comments to see 
if we can move this discussion back to the issue. We have been totally 
off the issue for the last 2 hours.
  The issue really has to do with MMS. It has to do with the 
development and enforcement of regulations. Nearly everyone who has 
gotten up so far has said: I do not know much about this; our State 
does not do this. And they have gone on to talk at length about it.
  I have been involved with this. I have been at the meetings with MMS. 
Our State is the largest State involved in terms of oil royalties.
  We ought to focus on the real issue for a while. I want to do that.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield for a question?
  Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.
  Mr. CRAIG. As we refocus this debate on the issue of royalties, 
obviously the Senators from Nevada and Massachusetts and California 
were focusing the issue of royalties on public land resources on 
education. There was a critical vote in the Senate last week which they 
strongly opposed--and some of them spoke against it--that directly

[[Page 22347]]

associated resources with education. That was the issue of timber, 
timber cuts, stumpage fees flowing back to local schools.
  Will the Senator respond to that? We are talking out of both sides of 
our mouths if we are saying that royalties are all for education, and 
yet just this last week, they voted against education in timber-
dependent communities across this country that have had their budgets 
cut 50 and 60 percent. The Senator from California voted that way, and 
the Senator from Nevada voted that way. Will the Senator from Wyoming 
respond to that?
  Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator make it a little clearer as to exactly 
how this impacts?
  Mr. CRAIG. The point I am making is, every time the Forest Service is 
allowed to cut a tree off public lands, 25 percent of that stumpage fee 
goes back to the local school district to be spent for schools.
  For good reasons, we have reduced the timber program by 70 percent in 
the last 7 years. I have a school district in my State that is not 
feeding its kids today and asking them to bring brown bags because the 
vote of the Senator from California, along with the Senators from 
Nevada and Massachusetts, denied them the right to cut trees on the 
clear water forests in my State.
  Can I get exercised about this? The Senator from Oregon supported me 
because he has a school district that is only allowing its kids to go 4 
days a week instead of 5. So if we are going to use oil royalties for 
that argument, quit speaking out of both sides of your mouth because 
just last week you voted that way.
  We have always balanced our natural resources for the good of the 
environment and for the good of the public that is associated with 
them. The Senator from Wyoming knows that. We graze on Wyoming public 
lands and we take oil and coal from under Wyoming public lands--State 
and Federal lands. Some of that money goes back to the local 
communities. Yet this administration wants to decouple that.
  I am glad the Senator from California is concerned about public land 
resources and local education, but you cannot be selective in this 
business. You have to share and associate. What I hear is a 
tremendously narrow and selective argument.
  I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding because that is a bogus 
argument that is being placed by the Senator from California, unless 
she wants to stand up with the Senator from Idaho and say: I recognize 
the need to balance timber sales in northern California because the 
money goes to the schools in northern California, as they do in Idaho. 
That is called balance. That is called sharing.
  I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding because you just cannot 
have it both ways in this business without someone such as me standing 
up and saying, foul ball, foul ball, bogus argument, unless you are 
willing to say: Wait a minute, I recognize your problem; we have it in 
the timberlands of Northern California.
  Oil is an issue. It is an important issue. We want a fair return on 
that. The Senator from the State of Texas is trying to build that kind 
of fairness into this debate.
  I thank my colleague from Wyoming for yielding. I yield the floor to 
him.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield for a question on 
a similar subject?
  Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Talking about education, along the lines of what the 
Senator from Idaho was just saying, we have another double standard, 
and that is, the Senator from California led the effort not to allow 
drilling offshore in California that is estimated to have cost the 
schoolchildren in the school districts of California over $1 million a 
year. That is a California decision.
  But the fact is, you cannot talk about losing money for 
schoolchildren by raising the taxes on oil companies on the one hand 
and then on the other hand say: But we are not going to allow drilling 
offshore that would put $1 million into the coffers for the 
schoolchildren of California.
  Don't you think there is a relationship here and perhaps there are 
the same issues but just people taking different sides?
  Mr. THOMAS. It certainly seems that way. I think there is a real 
paradox here. On the one hand we are talking about more money for 
education and at the same time voting to reduce that amount for 
education. So I think that is difficult.
  Let me go back to the topic that we are really here to discuss and 
that is MMS's proposed oil valuation rule. I rise in strong support of 
the Hutchison amendment. I have been working on this issue for a long 
time. I have been involved in numerous meetings. I have worked with the 
oil companies. I have worked with the school districts. I have worked 
with the State of Wyoming.
  We are working toward find a workable solutions for everyone, which 
seems to be ignored by the folks on the other side. We are trying to 
find a way, with these regulations, for Minerals Management to make 
them work better. We have met with them. The oil companies want to make 
it work better. We want to give the Congress an opportunity to 
participate in this matter of making regulations.
  So that is where we really are.
  The domestic companies, of course, already pay significant amounts of 
money. Someone was saying here that 95 percent pay but the others do 
not. That is simply not true but if it were, that is an enforcement 
issue. We have regulations now. The problem is, the regulations and the 
proposed regulation are not workable.
  Talking about having a price that is posted, that fits everywhere, 
that is not the way the oil business works. It is quite different in 
Wyoming than in Oklahoma. The idea of, where do you take the value? do 
you take it at the wellhead? that is what the contract says. But if you 
have to carry it, as an oil producer, out 10 miles to where it can be 
sold, it is quite a different cost that goes into it. These are the 
kinds of issues that are involved.
  These folks who have been talking this afternoon would make you think 
people were trying to do away with this. That is not the case at all. 
It is terribly unfair. It is not the issue. The issue is to work 
together with MMS and get these regulations enforced. It is relatively 
simple, frankly.
  I have to tell you, we talked some about the impact it has on Iowa, 
which is nothing; talked about the impact it has on Nevada, which is 
almost nothing because there is no production there.
  Let me tell you a little about our counties. We have 23 counties in 
Wyoming. Here is one, Park County: 82 percent Federal land. We have 
another one that is 80 percent Federal land: Big Horn County. These are 
places where jobs, where the tax base, where schools are financed 
largely by mineral production.
  We have mineral production now. Do we want to change the method of 
taxing? Fine. But we want to do it along with the Congress. We want to 
do it along with the producers. We want to make it work and not just be 
something that is to be done by MMS without consultation with industry 
and other involved. That is really quite simple.
  With regard to the editorial that was put in the Record, I have a 
rebuttal that also appeared in the LA Times, that I think would be fair 
to have in the Record, written by the vice president of the American 
Petroleum Institute, Chuck Sandler. I ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        (By Charles E. Sandler)

       Among the hallmarks of America's great opinion-shaping 
     industry has been its insistence on the swaying of hearts and 
     minds through the use of reasoned and finely crafted argument 
     based on sound information, not inflammatory rhetoric and 
     baseless accusations.
       Perhaps it is because I've always placed The Los Angeles 
     Times among the ranks of this country's great newspapers that 
     I find myself perplexed over what could possibly have led to 
     the publication of a shrill editorial about a complex subject 
     that cries out for dispassionate discussion--the Interior

[[Page 22348]]

     Department's proposed new rules governing the payment of 
     royalties by oil companies for oil they produce on federal 
     lands. What could have been a piece that shed light on the 
     issue's complexities instead came across as nothing more than 
     illogic-capped mountains of scurrilous accusations and 
     misinformation.
       We cannot expect the entire world to agree with us on all 
     issues that are important to us. But we do not see it as 
     unreasonable to expect a fair shake and a fair hearing from 
     those who write about us in respectable forums.
       These are the facts:
       First, oil companies are not promoting the use of posted 
     prices to compute future royalties, and in fact have not done 
     so for at least two years.
       Secondly, the editorial implies that only large producers 
     are concerned about the proposed rule when the truth is that 
     all oil producers, from the largest to the smallest mom-and-
     pop outfits, are united in opposing the rule.
       The oil and gas industry and the MMS are in agreement that 
     current oil valuation rules must be replaced. In fact, like 
     the MMS, the industry is seeking improved rules that are 
     fair, workable and free of the uncertainties and ambiguities 
     that make the current regulations a costly bureaucratic 
     nightmare, both for the oil companies and the federal 
     government. However, we oppose replacing the current system 
     with an even more flawed, more complex and more burdensome 
     set of regulations that fail to accurately take into 
     consideration a number of crucial and relevant expenses--
     transportation and other post-production costs, for 
     instance--in computing royalties.
       We have repeatedly urged the Interior Department's Minerals 
     Management Service (MMS) to establish a system that avoids 
     the complications of valuation altogether through the use of 
     a royalty-in-kind (RIK) program under which the government 
     takes its payement in oil, not dollars (an alternative 
     permitted but not required under current law).
       Under such a system, producers tender the government its 
     royalty share of production and it would in turn contract 
     with marketing companies to sell the oil at the fair-market 
     price, as other producers do. It would simplify the system, 
     eliminate the need for armies of accountants and lawyers (and 
     their fees), and it would provide an opportunity for the 
     federal and state governments to increase revenues. A similar 
     system has been used in Alberta, Canada, and resulted in 
     increased oil production and royalty payments, fewer 
     disagreements between the government and oil producers, and a 
     smaller bureaucracy. The government, unfortunately, has yet 
     to adopt such a proposal although a pilot RIK project is 
     being planned for this fall in the Gulf of Mexico.
       The Times editorial's unfair comparison of the current 
     situation to the Teapot Dome scandal--which involved fraud--
     ignores the significant fact that Democratic and Republican 
     members of Congress who have joined to prevent Interior from 
     unilaterally imposing its will on the industry have very 
     legitimate concerns. To suggest that a lawmaker from a state 
     that is a leader in oil and gas production is unduly 
     influenced by the oil and gas industry because she has taken 
     campaign contributions from that industry is ludicrous. It's 
     like saying that no Silicon Valley lawmaker who's received 
     campaign contributions from the high-tech industry should 
     ever lift a finger to help that sector of California's 
     economy.
       Contrary to the editorial's allegation, producers are 
     playing by the existing rules, as established by the 
     government. The fact that new rules have not been made final 
     as a result of Congress's decision to exercise its lawful 
     right to review policy does not alter that fact.
       Finally, if Interior were truly concerned about increasing 
     revenue from the land the federal government leases to oil 
     companies, it should give serious consideration to the tried 
     and tested royalty-in-kind proposal.
       Much work remains to be done before this matter is 
     resolved. Legitimate differences of opinion exist. In the 
     end, the issue will be settled by reasonable minds employing 
     reasoned arguments, both to promote their views and to secure 
     an agreement. The Times, unfortunately, missed a great 
     opportunity to be a part of that sober discussion.

  Mr. THOMAS. There is a great deal of involvement here. We have to 
talk a little bit about this industry. We have now, what, approximately 
55 percent of foreign oil that comes into this country. Our oil people 
are stressed to keep it going. The oil business has been in something 
of a depression. We had oil down in the $6-, $7-, $8-a-barrel range in 
Wyoming. That is not to say there ought not to be regulations, that 
there ought not to be the kind of royalty rules that can be lived by. 
That is what we are working for.
  If you came in from Mars and listened to what has been talked about 
over the last hour, you would think we did not have anything except a 
bunch of robber barons. That is not true--absolutely not true.
  So I hope we can go forward with this, we can go ahead and work in 
the next year to put these royalty rules together, as it should be, to 
put it together in a way that is fair.
  We have proposed regulations. We now have some changes in personnel 
in MMS that I think might make it work quite a bit better. We have some 
changes now coming forth at the Assistant Secretary's level.
  We really need to get down to some facts and get away from all this 
hyperbole about what people are not paying, and people are cheating, 
and all these things. If that is true, that is an enforcement issue 
that ought to be dealt with by the Federal Government.
  The West does have a unique relationship with the Federal Government. 
As I mentioned, all of us have a great deal of our land that is there, 
a great deal of our resources. We are dependent largely on mineral 
resources, along with agriculture and tourism, for our economy. So we 
need to have an economy that has jobs, that creates a tax base, that 
does the kinds of things that this industry does.
  So I am really interested in us moving forward beyond these types of 
arguments brought up by the other side of the aisle and get something 
accomplished. We have talked about this now, and we have had several 
votes on this, as a matter of fact. We had 60 votes to move forward. We 
are ready to go forward with the Interior bill and do some things that 
have to be done in the next week and a half. We owe it to the American 
people.
  I am really distressed by the idea of standing around wasting time on 
an issue that has pretty well been summed up and should be completed. 
We have already finished it, but we continue to go on and on here on 
the floor, I guess for political reasons. I cannot think of any other 
reason we continue to go on as long as we have.
  One of the things, of course, that is most difficult from time to 
time in dealing with the Federal Government is the Federal regulations 
that are onerous and difficult. They make it very hard for businesses.
  By the way, many of the businesses in Wyoming--and the oil business--
are small businesses, independent producers. Many of them are stripper 
wells and down to 15 barrels or so per day. These are not all the 
mammoth companies, and so on, they talk about. This is an industry that 
is tremendously important to our State.
  By the way, our students do receive a great deal of support from this 
source, which is our principal source, of course, for funding schools 
and doing the other things we do in our State.
  Efforts will go forward to continue to complete the regulations and 
the rules. That is really what we are aiming toward. That is really 
what we ought to do. MMS needs to work with industry and come up with 
some workable regulations. Talking about schools not having the money--
the money is there now. As the Senator from Idaho indicated, there have 
been diversions from that pot of money by the very people who are 
continuing to talk about needing more. It seems to be something of an 
irony to do it that way.
  I guess I have been particularly concerned about shifting the focus 
of our discussion today on an MMS proposed rule over to campaign 
finance, which we heard talked about for 30 minutes this morning. It is 
not relevant at all to what we are doing. And the implication that 
everyone who is for a workable rule is somehow a product of the 
contributions, I am offended by this. I am. I think it is a very 
unproductive kind of an argument.
  I hope we can move forward, get this behind us, that we can get this 
job done. We can do it, and it can be done. By working with MMS, we and 
industry can come up with a workable rule. We are on our way to doing 
that now.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I do not yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think this is our hour, if I understand 
it correctly.

[[Page 22349]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming had the floor. Did he 
yield the floor?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yielded the floor to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator cannot yield the floor to another 
Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota was recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will Senator Wellstone yield, without losing his right?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question, without losing 
my right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How long will it be in terms of the remarks the Senator 
will make before he yields the floor?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, probably about an hour.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Wyoming, I 
understand the point he is making about the connections to money at an 
individual level. I am not here to make that argument. I think there is 
a different argument that could be made about the need for reform.
  What I want to do is go back to what I think is the issue. To me, the 
issue is that the Hutchison amendment is an outrageous provision. The 
reason we are out here on the floor is, we want people in the country 
to know about it. We all have to be accountable.
  It was offered to the Interior appropriations bill. Now, because of 
this successful effort to get cloture, this amendment, if it goes into 
law, which it will, will restrict the Interior Department from doing 
its job, which is to make sure that the oil companies pay their full 
royalties. I thank the Senator from California for having the courage 
to come out and take on this effort and for having the courage to make 
this an issue, a very public issue in the country.
  The reason we are out here is that behind this amendment lies an 
unbelievable story. The Interior Department's Mineral Management 
Service, MMS, simply wanted to collect the money that these oil 
companies owe the public. Many of the industry's largest companies have 
been consistently underpaying their royalties. They are not paying 
their taxes. Ordinary people, which I mean in a positive way, in 
Illinois or Minnesota, they pay their taxes. These companies have not 
been paying their taxes, not the fair share.
  Last year, Mobil Oil agreed to a $56.5 million settlement of Federal 
and State lawsuits alleging underpayment of royalties. They agreed to 
the settlement. Also, according to the Wall Street Journal, not exactly 
a bastion of liberalism, Chevron Corporation has agreed in principle to 
pay approximately $95 million to resolve a civil lawsuit charging that 
Chevron shortchanged the American public. That is what has been going 
on.
  There have been a flurry of other settlements--$2.5 billion in 
Alaska, $350 million in California, $17.5 million in Texas, $10 million 
in Louisiana, and $8 million in New Mexico. Remember, this oil belongs 
to the public. What we have been saying to these companies is: Go 
ahead, take the oil, but all we ask, as the public, is for you to pay 
the market value. I don't think that is too much to ask, nor do the 
people of this country think it is too much to ask. Apparently, the big 
oil companies do. If there was a poll in the country, 99 percent of the 
people would be with my colleague from California.
  Let me be clear about one thing: We are not talking about all of the 
oil companies. We are not talking about the mom and pop independents. 
We are talking about large integrated companies that sell to affiliates 
at undervalued prices. They make up only 5 percent of the oil companies 
drilling on the Federal land, but they account for 68 percent of the 
Federal production.
  The Interior Department, up to the time of this Hutchison amendment, 
was developing regulations to stop this highway robbery. People get 
angry. People work hard. They pay their taxes. Then they see these big 
oil companies that say: We don't have to pay our taxes.
  This is not new authority. Interior always had the statutory 
authority to collect royalties on the fair market value. But what the 
Hutchison amendment would do would essentially negate what the Interior 
Department was trying to do. What was the Interior Department trying to 
do? These new regulations would keep the oil companies from 
manipulating ``fair market value'' to underpay their royalties.
  That is what they have been doing. They have been cheating. This is 
the question I ask my colleagues: Do these companies, these large 
integrated oil companies, deserve our sympathy? I don't think so. They 
have been caught. Let me repeat that. They have been caught. They have 
been caught underpaying their royalties. They have been cheating the 
public. That is what they have been doing.
  My colleague from Texas and some other Senators come to the floor and 
they want to do a special favor for the big oil companies. The reason 
we are out on the floor is, even if we lost on the cloture vote, I say 
to my colleague from California and other Senators, we don't lose this 
vote, not really. We don't lose this fight, not really, because I think 
people in the country are absolutely outraged.
  We are talking about $66 million a year that could be going to the 
environment, to schools, to our children. We are talking about big oil 
companies that basically seem to think--my colleague from Wisconsin was 
out here on the floor, and I guess other Senators didn't appreciate 
what he was doing. But with all due respect, this is a reform issue. 
How is it that we have so much sympathy, how is it we care so deeply, 
how is it we feel the pain of these oil companies, how is it we are so 
much at their service, and yet, when it comes to families that can't 
afford child care, we don't have the same sympathy? When it comes to 
making sure we make the investment in education for our children, we 
apparently don't have the same sympathy.
  I was at a press conference with my colleague from Vermont, Senator 
Jeffords, a Republican. We were talking about the current course, which 
is going to be about a 12- to 14-percent cut in low-income energy 
assistance in a cold weather State. We are talking about grants of 
maybe $285, but it makes a huge difference. Do my colleagues know that 
for around 85-, 90,000 households in Minnesota, a third of them are 
elderly; 70 percent of them are working poor?
  This means there is a grant so that during the cold winter months in 
Minnesota--we have a few of those months--we make sure those families, 
in trying to pay their heat, are still also able to afford food, or 
elderly people don't give up on prescription drugs.
  What do we have here? We have a Senate, by virtue of the vote on the 
floor of the Senate, which basically does the bidding for these big oil 
companies. All of our sympathies are for these companies. My colleague 
from California has had the courage to confront this, to take this on. 
The reason we are taking our time this afternoon, I say to the Senator 
from California, is that we want as many people in the country as 
possible to know about this. That is right; absolutely, that is right.
  I said, when the Senator was out, I have no doubt--and I thank her 
for her effort; I know she must be getting tired--I have no doubt that 
99 percent of the people in this country are on your side. I say that 
to the Senator from California. People are outraged by this. This is 
another example of too few people, with too much power, having too much 
say over how the Senate operates, and the vast majority of the people 
are left out.
  It is interesting; my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, 
just gave me a summary of what happened today on the House side in the 
Subcommittee on Education of Appropriations. Unbelievable. They cut 
$1.2 billion in money that would have gone to reduce class size. My 
daughter is a Spanish teacher. I asked her the other day, ``What size 
classes do you have this year?'' She said, ``36 and 38.'' Those are two 
of her classes. Those classes need to be smaller.
  Then I was talking to my son, who has two small children in 
elementary

[[Page 22350]]

school. In the third grade class, there are 28 students. We know if we 
reduce class size, teachers would have more time to spend with these 
kids, and they can do better. Today, on the House side, our Republican 
colleagues cut this--title I funding, $264 million below the 
President's request.
  I have to talk about this for a little while. This is unbelievable. 
Albeit, I was literally on this one, in a minority, but we had all this 
discussion about Ed-Flex and all that we were going to do with title I. 
At the same time, our title I funding for low-income children in our 
country is about a third of the level of what it should be if we were 
to reach all the kids. This is money that is used for teaching 
assistants, more teachers, more parent outreach, higher standards, and 
making sure that kids who fall behind can meet those standards. Today, 
we are essentially cutting title I. How could the $66 million be used? 
We can hire a thousand teachers; we can put 44,000 new computers in the 
classrooms; we can buy textbooks for 1.2 million students; we can 
provide 53 million hot lunches for schoolchildren.
  So I can't understand when some of my colleagues come out on the 
floor and say this is not the issue. This is the issue. These oil 
companies have been cheating. They haven't been paying their fair share 
of taxes. They were able to get some Senators to come out here as a 
favor to them and make sure they are able to continue to basically not 
pay their fair share of taxes. We give up $66 million, and the choice 
becomes not the mom-and-pop operations, but huge, big, integrated oil 
companies.
  Do I have sympathy on the side of big oil companies, or am I on the 
side of children? That is an easy question for me and the vast majority 
of people in this country to answer. It is interesting; when we talk 
about the whole issue of cheating the public, I want to point this out 
on the floor of the Senate. Now we are talking about cheating the 
public. Now we are talking about the Interior Department wanting to 
basically put into effect the regulation that makes sure the big oil 
companies could not cheat the public. Now we are talking about an 
effort that basically is an effort to undo this regulation, undo the 
work of the Interior Department.
  The Interior Department is essentially saying to people: You know 
what. We, as a Government agency, are going to make sure the oil 
companies pay their fair share, which is what people believe in. People 
get angry because they think we are well-connected, and if you make 
huge contributions--which is what my colleague from Wisconsin was 
talking about--and you are a heavy hitter and you have lobbyists, you 
can get special deals. People hate that. They get furious about it. I 
don't blame them.
  I heard a lot about cheating and all the rest when we had the welfare 
debate. It is interesting. We have all this sympathy for the ``poor,'' 
large oil companies. They come in here and, apparently, for some of my 
colleagues, we can't do enough for them, even when they are not paying 
their fair share. But you know, it is interesting; we never have any of 
the same sympathy for poor mothers and children.
  I have been out on the floor of the Senate trying to get at least 
some honest policy evaluation of how this welfare bill is working. I 
get something passed on the Senate floor, and it is taken out in 
conference committee. As I was saying, how about some sympathy for 
others? Maybe if they are not as well connected, or maybe if they don't 
have all of the income, we still ought to care about them.
  So if we hear from Families USA that since that welfare bill passed, 
there are 670,000 fewer children who have medical coverage, we ought to 
be concerned. If we hear from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that 
there has been a dramatic rise in the number of hungry and food-
insecure families in the country, maybe we ought to be concerned. And 
if we know there has been about a 25-percent drop in food stamp 
participation, maybe we ought to be concerned.
  If we hear that most of these mothers are getting jobs that are 
barely above minimum wage, and then they lose health care coverage and 
they don't find good child care for their children, maybe we should be 
concerned. If it is the case, as it is the case in Minnesota--and I 
will bet in a lot of other States as well--that we can't even make the 
rent subsidy program work any longer because there is no affordable 
low-income housing, so the fair market value is above what would make 
anybody eligible, and that people can't even find housing and they 
can't cash-flow--they would have to make $12 or $13 to be able to cash-
flow to afford any affordable housing for themselves and their 
children, and if the most dramatic rise in the homeless population is 
women and children, maybe we should have the same concern. But we 
don't.
  We are concerned for these oil companies that have been caught 
cheating, but we are not concerned for low-income women and children. 
We are concerned for these oil companies that have been caught 
cheating. There is not enough we can do for them, but we are not 
concerned about funding title I. We are not concerned about making sure 
we fund low-income energy assistance. We are not concerned about making 
the investment to reduce class size. We are not concerned about 
affordable child care. We are not concerned about making sure that we 
fully fund and make the investment we ought to make in veterans' health 
care.
  But we can't do enough for these oil companies that have been caught 
cheating.
  I think this debate we have been having, this sort of fight on the 
floor of the Senate speaks volumes on what is at stake. Let me simply, 
one more time, repeat what I said earlier. This amendment is an 
outrageous provision offered to the Interior appropriations bill. What 
it does is it basically restricts the Interior Department from doing 
its job. What the Interior Department was trying to do was make sure 
the oil companies pay the full royalties for the oil they are drilling 
on Federal or Indian land. Therefore, we lose, roughly speaking, $66 
million a year. Therefore, the choice becomes: Do you hire a thousand 
teachers? Do you put 44,000 new computers into the classrooms? Do you 
buy textbooks for 1.2 million students? Do you provide 53 million hot 
lunches for schoolchildren? Or do you basically come down on the side 
of the big oil companies?
  Well, I am proud to say on the floor of the Senate that I am not the 
Senator for the big oil companies or the big insurance companies or the 
pharmaceutical companies. They already have great representation in 
Washington, DC. It is the rest of the people who need it. That is what 
Senator Boxer has been trying to do--represent the rest of the people 
in this country. That is what I am proud to do out on the floor of the 
Senate.
  It is interesting. October is going to be Domestic Violence Awareness 
Month. It is so important that in October we focus on the violence in 
families. About every 13 seconds a woman is beaten and battered in her 
home. A home is supposed to be a safe place. About every 13 seconds, 
that is a conservative figure. All too many children witness this 
violence, as well.
  As it turns out, we also at this time are recognizing the 25th 
anniversary of Women's Advocates, which was the Nation's first battered 
women's shelter located in St. Paul, MN. I have a lot of pride when I 
talk about the staff and when I talk about the volunteers and the 
supporters of Women's Advocates.
  In 1974, the doors of this shelter first opened for women and their 
children who were seeking some respite from violence. It took a lot of 
courage and for women to stand up to this.
  To date, this wonderful, special place has provided advocacy shelter 
and advocacy and support services to over 25,000 women and children. 
They spend countless hours teaching our schoolchildren and community 
members about the impact. Women's Advocates stands as a pillar of grace 
and triumph. I hail executive director, Elizabeth Wolf, and all the 
courageous women.
  But what is interesting to me--I raise this question because, again, 
I come out on the floor of the Senate and I say: Can't we do more to 
try to stop

[[Page 22351]]

this violence? Can't we have more safe visitation centers to protect 
children and women? Can't we make sure we do more by way of supporting 
children who witness this violence in their homes--some 3 to 5 million 
children? Can't we do more to make sure these women who have been 
battered and who have experienced this violence can afford housing when 
they leave these shelters? Do you know what the answer is from my 
colleagues? No. We can't make that investment. We don't have the money. 
But when the oil companies that have been cheating and have been caught 
cheating come here and they say, please give us a special break, please 
give us a special favor, we find it easy to give them our sympathy and 
to give them what they want.
  How interesting it is. This is an issue of representation. How 
interesting it is that when we are talking about children in our 
schools, when we are talking about working families that can't afford 
child care for their children, when we are talking about men and women 
who work in our child care centers and have to leave because they can't 
make a living wage, therefore, there is all this turnover--the 
Washington Post had an excellent piece about this not too long ago--and 
when we are talking about whether or not people who work almost 52 
weeks a year, 40 hours a week, shouldn't be able to have a living wage 
and we should raise the minimum wage, or when we are talking about 
whether or not can't we do more by way of affordable houses, or when we 
are talking about how we can't expand the Pell grant program to make 
sure higher education is more affordable, we don't have any sympathy; 
we don't have any resources; there is nothing we can do.
  But when it comes to these big oil companies, when they come here and 
they say, please give us a special favor, we have been cheating and now 
the Interior Department is going to say we can't cheat any longer and 
we have to pay our fair share of taxes, we ask you to fix that. That is 
exactly what the crux of the amendment is. That is exactly why we are 
speaking on the floor with a tremendous amount of indignation.
  The question becomes one of representation. I think this actually is 
what my colleague from Wisconsin was trying to speak to. Why do the 
wage earners, these working families, these children and women who are 
experiencing violence, children who witness that violence, why don't 
their concerns seem to carry any weight and yet the concerns of the 
poor large oil companies that have been caught cheating seem to matter? 
What is going on here?
  I think this is a huge problem. I think this has everything in the 
world to do with the need for reform. This has to do with a mix of 
money and politics. This has to do with: Who are the players? Who are 
the contributors? Who are the heavy hitters? Who are the well 
connected? Who can get Senators to do their bidding?
  I tell you, it is outrageous. That is why I am on the floor to say it 
is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous.
  I have another question. I have a different question. This one is 
very near and dear to my heart.
  Why do we have all of this concern for these poor big oil companies 
that have been caught cheating and don't want to pay their fair share 
but we don't have the same concern for family farmers who right now are 
going under? We are going to lose another 6.57 percent of our family 
farmers in Minnesota. These producers are going to go under. We want to 
come out here and we want to say raise the loan rate.
  I say to my colleague from Michigan, I would be pleased to finish up 
a little bit earlier. I will finish up in a few minutes. I have other 
colleagues wanting to speak. I will make one final point.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from 
Michigan be allowed to follow me. I still have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take my time.
  Let me simply raise another question, which is if we have all of this 
concern for these big oil companies, and we want to prevent the 
Interior Department from making sure they can pay full royalties, then 
why don't we have the same concern for family farmers in the State of 
Minnesota? Why don't we have the same concern for the producers in my 
State? Many of us from the farm States want to come out here and we 
want to talk about raising the loan rate. I have a proposal that I want 
an up-or-down vote on to put a moratorium on these acquisitions and 
these mergers.
  We want to talk about antitrust action. We want to talk about fair 
trade policy. We want to know why the conference committee can't even 
get the emergency assistance to our farmers who are going under.
  But it seems as if when it comes to family farmers in Minnesota, or, 
for that matter, Illinois, or in our country, or when it comes to 
education for children, or when it comes to veterans' health care, or 
when it comes to low-income energy assistance, or when it comes to 
affordable housing, or when it comes to what we can do about reducing 
violence in homes, the brunt of the violence directed at women and 
children, we don't have very much sympathy. But we have all of the 
sympathy in the world for these poor oil companies that have been 
caught cheating because, after all, they are the ones that are the well 
connected. They are the ones that have the resources. They are the ones 
that seem to make a difference.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Minnesota will 
yield for a unanimous consent.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question. I would like to 
keep the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to keep the floor and yield for a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--if the Senator 
from Minnesota would be able to do this--that the Senator from 
Minnesota yield within the next few minutes to the Senator from Texas 
for 10 minutes, and then to the Senator from Michigan for 10 minutes, 
and then, if the Senator from Minnesota is still on the floor after 
giving us the time, the floor go back to the Senator from Minnesota 
until 4:15, at which point the floor would be yielded to the Senator 
from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, or her designee.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is so much more I want to say 
right now, but I am pleased to yield to that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, at 4:15 Senator Domenici or I will be 
recognized and we will use approximately 45 minutes of our time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. And I have how much time after?
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me state the unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Fifteen minutes, from 4 to 4:15, is what the Senator 
would have.
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me state the unanimous consent request. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Gramm have 10 minutes at this time, then 
I have 10 minutes, the floor go back to Senator Wellstone until 4:15, 
then it go to Senator Hutchison or her designee at 4:15, and any time 
remaining to Senator Wellstone on his hour at 4:15 that he retain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I take 30 seconds to summarize?
  Mr. LEVIN. I add that Senator Wellstone take whatever number of 
minutes he wishes to summarize. That comes off my 10 minutes.
  I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I know how difficult it is. He is 
into some very important material, and it is an intrusion, but it 
accommodates a number of Senators.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the question, How does it come to 
be that these large oil companies have generated so much of our 
sympathy, have enlisted so much of our sympathy? They have been caught. 
Let me repeat that: They have been caught

[[Page 22352]]

underpaying their royalties. They have been cheating. And we have all 
of the sympathy for these big oil companies.
  But when it comes to children, when it comes to family farmers, when 
it comes to doing something about reducing violence in homes, when it 
comes to raising the minimum wage, when it comes to affordable child 
care, when it comes to affordable health care, when it comes to so many 
of the issues so important to families in our country, we don't seem to 
have the same sympathy.
  This debate goes to the heart of what is at stake in the Senate. What 
is at stake is, Whom do we represent? Are we Senators for the big oil 
companies or are we Senators for the vast majority of citizens in our 
country who are asking Senators to get serious with good public policy 
that will make a difference for them, make a difference for their 
children, make a big difference for our communities?
  That is what this is about. Do we have representative democracy where 
the vast majority of people are heard or do we have a system where we 
have democracy for the few, where the big oil companies come here and 
work out their special deals? That is what they have done, America. 
That is so outrageous. That is what is so unconscionable. That is why 
we are taking the time this afternoon to make sure every single citizen 
in this country understands what has happened here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Gramm of Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, what a pity it is that America today is 
focused on the fact that the President has vetoed the tax bill and is 
not paying a bit of attention to this debate. So much passion, it is a 
shame it is wasted, but it is.
  The President has vetoed the tax bill. It means the average working 
couple in America will bear $1,400 a year of marriage penalty because 
the President doesn't believe they ought to get relief. It means all 
over America people who inherit family farms and small businesses from 
their parents, who worked a lifetime to build the farms and businesses 
up, will have to sell them to give the Government 55 cents out of every 
dollar of value for which their parents worked a lifetime.
  Because the President has vetoed the tax bill, it means we are not 
going to have a small across-the-board tax cut for every working 
American who pays income taxes. Because the President vetoed the tax 
bill, we are not going to make health insurance deductible for Joe and 
Sarah Brown, the same as it is deductible for General Motors or General 
Electric.
  We know, based on the makeup of the House and Senate and based on the 
votes of our Democrat colleagues who have been steadfastly opposed to 
cutting taxes for working families, that we can't override the 
President's veto. So the tax debate is over.
  Thank goodness we will have a new President in 15 months. The 
American people are going to get to vote in part on whether or not 
Government ought to spend a surplus or give part of it back. When they 
vote, we will vote again.
  I say this to the President: I hope the President will not send down 
to Congress more spending bills, because they will pass over my cold, 
dead political body. I hope the President is not going to propose 
raising taxes and spending money because they are going to pass over my 
cold, dead political body. We can't make Bill Clinton cut taxes, but we 
can stop him from spending the Social Security surplus. That is exactly 
what we are going to do.
  We are going to hear all kinds of whining from the White House about 
how the President has ``got to, got to, got to'' have more money, even 
though we are spending more than ever in American history. He has to 
have more, and we have to steal it from Social Security or raise taxes 
to pay for it. It is not going to happen. End of that debate.
  Now, I want to say I have never, since I have been in the Senate, 
seen a debate so out of kilter with the real issue that is before the 
Senate. Quite frankly, I have seen few debates that are as mean-
spirited as this debate.
  Here is the issue in a nutshell: For 4 years, the Congress has 
decided, when we wrote a law setting out royalties on oil production 
that would be paid to the Federal Government and establishing a system 
to collect them, we meant what we said; that when the Government 
entered into contracts with people, that those contracts were binding; 
and that if people wanted to raise those royalties, that ought to be 
voted on in Congress. After all, we went to the inconvenience to run 
for public office, and the Constitution says Congress shall have the 
power to raise taxes and to spend money.
  It must be wonderful to have all these things my colleagues hate--big 
oil, big medicine, big pharmaceuticals--but we are talking about $22 
million a year worth of royalties. This is not about money, this is 
about principle. It is about whether or not Congress ought to set the 
law and whether Congress has the power to tax, or whether the Federal 
bureaucracy, through its own power and by its own agenda, with no 
support from Congress, can override Congress' will and make law.
  I am proud of my dear, wonderful colleague from Texas. I love my 
colleague from Texas because she is tough. I have never seen an issue 
so demagogued as this issue. I have to say to her, she has not backed 
up an inch and she has won. I think it is a great testament to her 
courage and to her toughness. I congratulate her on both.
  The issue is not big oil versus schoolchildren. If the Federal 
Government raises royalties and therefore raises the deliverable price 
at the filling station, or when you buy home heating oil, who pays for 
it? Who pays for it is working men and women. That is food, clothing, 
shelter, and education they take away from their children.
  This is not an issue about oil companies versus children; this is an 
issue of whether we want to take an action through regulation on which 
Congress constitutionally should be voting.
  Second, do we want to raise those prices? I do not. In terms of all 
of this stuff, big oil and political power, they do not have anything 
to do with this debate. This debate is about whether or not the Mineral 
Management Service should have unilateral powers to change royalty 
rates, or whether Congress, which set the rates to begin with, 
established the process, should have the power to make those changes if 
they choose.
  Our Democrat colleagues use terms such as ``fairness'' and ``big 
oil'' and ``excess profits.'' It all reminds me of when their policy 
was in effect under President Carter, and we all waited in line to buy 
gasoline; when their policy was in force under President Carter and we 
had double-digit inflation. Maybe they want to go back to that. I do 
not. But to turn this into some kind of political shouting match when 
we are talking about a debate that involves $22 million a year, which 
is a small amount but a fundamental principle of American government 
which is beyond setting a price on, and that is who makes the law in 
this country? Does the bureaucracy make law or does the Congress make 
law?
  Our colleague from Texas has, for 4 years in a row, set out in law 
the principle that Congress made the law to begin with, and when we are 
ready to change it, we will change it. We do not need the Clinton 
administration acting as executive branch, legislative branch, and 
regulator all combined.
  So I say to my colleague, I am proud of what she has done. I am proud 
that she has won, and all the whining and all the moaning and all the 
groaning does not change the fact that the Senator from Texas stands on 
the firmest ground that you could stand on, on the floor of the Senate. 
The Constitution, in article I, gives Congress the power to impose 
taxes. It does not give the Mineral Management Service the power to 
impose taxes. Nor will we ever give them that power. That is what this 
issue is about. I think we demean the legislative process and demean 
debate by trying to turn this into something that it is not.
  I know someone from the Mineral Management Service has said --and our 
colleague from Texas is going to give

[[Page 22353]]

the exact quote --that we need this issue to demagog. Maybe they need 
this issue to demagog. But this is the greatest deliberative body in 
the history of the world. Here we are supposed to be debating real 
issues.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to yield.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is the Senator referring to the quote from Michael 
Gaudlin of the Department of the Interior, Communications Director, 
quoted in Inside Energy magazine, November 2, 1998, in which he said, 
``We're sticking to the position we've taken.'' ``It gives us an issue 
to demagog for another year.''
  Is that what he is referring to?
  Mr. GRAMM. Will my colleague read what the quote said again? I want 
to be sure that is what I was referring to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Michael Gaudlin of Department of the Interior, 
Communications Director, quoted in Inside Energy magazine, November 2, 
1998, in which he said, ``We're sticking to the position we've taken.'' 
``It gives us an issue to demagog for another year.''
  Mr. GRAMM. That is the quote I am talking about. I thank our 
colleague for using it.
  Let me say this. He can demagog all he wants to. But if he wants to 
raise taxes, let me suggest to him he quit his job, go back wherever he 
is from, and that he convince millions of people to elect him to the 
Senate. Then he can come up here and vote to raise taxes. But as long 
as he is there and not here, I do not care what he thinks about taxes. 
It is not his duty to raise them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 10 minutes of the Senator have expired. 
The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is very interesting that we have had 
such a focus on Congress having the power rather than the bureaucracy 
having the power. Many of us worked very hard in this body, including, 
I believe, the Senator from Texas, to make sure Congress would have the 
power to review regulation and to review rules. We have a Congressional 
Accountability Act. It is pretty new. We do not use it very often, but 
it is there. For 60 days after the Interior Department adopts a rule, 
if we will let them adopt the rule, we have the power to override that 
rule by expedited procedure.
  So if my good friend from Texas really wants Congress to be in the 
position that we can override the rule if we ever permit the rule to be 
adopted, we have that power. We worked hard to get that power in law. 
It took us many years to get that power in law. It is called 
congressional accountability, congressional review, and the rulemaking 
process that the Interior Department is following is a rulemaking 
process that we told them to follow. We are not going to let them 
finish it, apparently. The argument we now hear is we are not going to 
let them finish it because we have the power. We should have the power, 
not the bureaucracy.
  The problem with that argument is it ignores the fact that if we did 
let them finish, which we should, their rulemaking process, we would 
have the power to override a rule of the Department of the Interior. 
For 60 days we have expedited procedures that will permit us to 
override their rule. So that argument does not wash.
  The part of this that really intrigues me the most is what so-called 
integrated oil companies have been able to get away with by basically 
setting their own prices instead of using market price. I was really 
intrigued by this. I was not into this issue until a few months ago, 
really. I started reading some editorials. I started reading the 
congressional speeches here in the Senate of Senator Boxer and others.
  I asked the Interior Department. I said: Can you give me some 
examples where you have an integrated oil company and an independent 
oil company that are drilling the same oil from public lands and paying 
us different royalties; where the price they are setting in an 
integrated company on the one hand, and an independent company on the 
other hand, are different for the same oil from adjacent lands, both 
being public lands, of course? Because then, if you have different 
prices being set for the same oil, you have overwhelming evidence that 
we are being cheated. Either that or the independents are paying more 
than they should, which is a pretty unlikely thing because they are 
going by the market price. They are going by what they get for the oil 
in an arm's length transaction.
  So on the one hand, you have independents with an arm's length 
transaction, which is what the law is. Then we have the integrateds 
coming along, saying the prices are going to be a lot different based 
on what they are charging themselves.
  So I asked the Department of the Interior to take a look at areas on 
public lands where you have independents and integrated oil companies 
right next to each other drilling for the same oil. Is there a price 
differential?
  Here are the numbers they give me. It is to me powerful evidence that 
we are being cheated because from the same lease, the same oil field, 
the same oil, in 6 months in 1999, we get different prices, and in 
every case the price that is being set by the integrated company is 
less than the market price which was established by the independent in 
its arm's length transaction.
  How do we justify this? How does an integrated company justify that? 
In January 1999, three different fields: Colorado, New Mexico, and the 
Gulf of Mexico. Sales price, dollars per barrel, the independent: 
$12.43. That was the market price. That was the price they were paid on 
the market for that oil. The same lease, same oil field, same oil the 
integrated company is basing their royalty to us on: $11.83.
  February, the independent, arm's length transaction, getting $11.97 
and paying a royalty based on that. What does the integrated company 
base its royalty on? When it sells it to itself: $11.36.
  March of 1999, Colorado, same lease, same field, same oil in terms of 
quality, you have the same oil. The independent, he is basing the 
royalty to us on $14.60. The integrated company is basing its royalty 
to us on $14.08.
  April, same story; May, same story; June, same story. That's 
Colorado, the first 6 months of 1999.
  I asked them to give me some examples. I told them not to pick and 
choose; give me examples which are typical examples where you have oil 
sales, same lease, same field, same quality oil next to each other. 
That is in what I am interested.
  This is the New Mexico field. It has the same kind of price 
structure. The independent sells it for $11.74. The integrated company 
is paying us on $9.83.
  In February, New Mexico, the independent company paid, arm's length 
transaction, $11.53. The integrated company is basing a royalty to us 
on $10.16.
  Something is fundamentally wrong here. The Senator from California 
and others, it seems to me, have demonstrated in a very clear, dramatic 
fashion that something is wrong, but when you break it down and ask the 
Interior Department to give us some more evidence, give us evidence of 
the differences in the amount on which royalties are based, where the 
field is the same field, where the lease is the same field--these are 
public lands. This oil does not belong to the oil companies; it belongs 
to the people of the United States. They are on our land. This is not a 
tax; it is a royalty for our property. We own it. It is ours and we let 
the oil companies drill on it.
  What did they come up with? Gulf of Mexico, same field, same lease, 
the independent company, arm's length transaction gets $11.19. The 
integrated company, selling to itself, is basing its royalty on $10.49. 
There is a lot of evidence of these miscalculations by these integrated 
companies so they pay less royalties.
  What could be more compelling evidence when you have oil being drawn 
from the same field, the same lease right next to each other on a 
public land? How much more compelling evidence do we need before we 
finally say to the Interior Department: Go ahead, do your rule.
  In closing, I remind our colleagues of one other thing and it is 
where I started. What we hear from the Senator

[[Page 22354]]

from Texas is we should do this, not the bureaucracy. We have the power 
to override the bureaucracy under this new process which so many of us 
worked so hard to put in place so we are accountable, not the 
bureaucracy. It used to be called legislative review. Before that, we 
thought we had a legislative veto, but that was overridden by the 
Supreme Court. Now it is called the Congressional Accountability Act. 
For 60 days, if we will let the Interior Department follow the process, 
we then have the power, under expedited procedures, to override any 
final rule they may adopt.
  This effort is to truncate that, to cut it off so they cannot follow 
the rulemaking process. That is what this effort is all about.
  What it will stop is the elimination of this absurdity. It is absurd 
for the same oil, for the same field to be charged at different 
amounts. It is obvious what is going on. The independent companies, 
because they are selling on the market, have a very clear objective, 
outside way of determining market value.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. It is my understanding that Senator Wellstone was going 
to be here at 4. He has yielded the extra time until 4:15 to the 
Senator from Michigan. I want to engage him in a couple questions, if 
there is no objection, and then at 4:15, we will go to Senator Domenici 
or Senator Hutchison's person of choice.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from California, 
I certainly will not object, but I have one other Senator who has also 
asked for time.
  Mrs. BOXER. Go right ahead and make a UC request.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that at 5 o'clock I have 5 
minutes for Senator Brownback and 5 minutes for Senator Enzi, and then 
perhaps Senator Graham can come after that.
  Mrs. BOXER. I agree, if we can say after the Senators have spoken 
then we go to my designee for a period of up to 30 minutes. Is that all 
right, since the Senator is going to have the next hour?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that I have the hour from 
4:15 to 5:15, and then the Senator from California will have the next 
30 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is fine.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I propose that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. We are winding down.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this 
chart be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           AN INDEFENSIBLE GAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Gulf of
                                     Colorado    New Mexico     Mexico
     Sales month and company       sales price  sales price     (sales
                                    ($/barrel)   ($/barrel)   price ($/
                                                               barrel)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1999
  Independent....................        12.43        11.74        11.19
  Integrated.....................        11.83         9.83        10.49
February 1999
  Independent....................        11.97        11.53        10.93
  Integrated.....................        11.36        10.16        10.35
March 1999
  Independent....................        14.60        14.09        13.01
  Integrated.....................        14.08        11.13        12.77
April 1999
  Independent....................        17.28        16.43        15.44
  Integrated.....................        16.61        14.00        15.34
May 1999
  Independent....................        17.80        17.20        16.65
  Integrated.....................        17.11        15.83        15.94
June 1999
  Independent....................        18.16        (\1\)        16.21
  Integrated.....................        17.31        16.62        16.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not reported.
 
Oil Sales are from the same lease, same field, and same oil for six
  months in 1999, for Colorado, New Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico,
  respectively.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, understanding the Senator from Michigan 
now has about 9 minutes remaining, I want to ask him a couple of 
questions.
  First, I thank him very much for his contributions to this debate. I 
know my friend from Michigan is very meticulous. He was interested in 
finding a specific case to point to where oil was drilled on very 
similar lands very close to each other where the oil companies listed 
different market prices. He asked the Interior Department for that. It 
was a struggle to get it, and he got it.
  I say to my friend, if he can hold up the ARCO chart, I want to try 
to translate what he has taught us in the specifics to the more 
general, which is this: Does my friend from Michigan not conclude, 
after his presentation, there is convincing evidence that a small 
percentage of the oil companies--namely, those that are integrated and 
wind up having the first point of sale essentially with themselves--
have been consistently undervaluing the price of the oil on which they 
pay their royalties, and that, in fact, what happens then is that the 
taxpayers who, as my friend has pointed out, own this land, it belongs 
to the people of the United States of America, thereby get cheated by 
that differential? And that is explained on the chart. In other words, 
the market price is continuously higher than the oil company's posted 
price, the price on which these 5 percent of the companies pay the 
royalties. Is that not a fair summary of what is happening?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is what is happening. What the Interior Department 
has done for me at my request is to take a look at situations, as the 
Senator from California said, where we have oil being drilled under the 
same lease, the same field so we know it is the same quality oil, next 
to each other by two different companies, one of which is the 5 
percent, the integrated company which is setting its own price, and the 
other by one of the independents, and to compare the market prices 
which are set on which the royalty is based.
  I told them to give me typical examples. Do not pick and choose. Give 
me typical examples. The typical examples are on the chart. They show a 
range of differences in sale prices from 10 cents minimum to $2.99 per 
barrel. When you put that over the entire country for one company, you 
come up with this kind of a situation where you have a market price the 
independents are paying and then you have a posted price by an 
integrated company, which is below that consistently.
  It is wrong, and we have to end it. The Senator from California is 
leading an effort to end that. We ought to permit the Interior 
Department to complete its rulemaking process, and then, if a majority 
of this Congress thinks they have not done this properly, we have a way 
to override it. We are the final determinants, not the bureaucracy, and 
we have that power.
  We, obviously, do not want to see what this will result in because 
some of us very clearly want this situation to continue. It is an 
unfair situation to the taxpayers. It is discriminatory against 
companies that pay royalties, by the way, based on arm's length market 
price setting. It is not even fair to them. It is not fair to the 
States that also get part of these resources.
  We are not talking about a tax. This is not a business or an 
individual being taxed. This is oil that is owned by the public.
  The business is owned by an individual. It is a private business. The 
oil being drilled is publicly owned oil. So there is a major difference 
between this and a tax.
  Mrs. BOXER. I know my friend needs to run off. I ask unanimous 
consent that I can finish up this portion of my time, and at 4:15 go to 
Senator Hutchison, if there is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend, again, as he runs off to a very 
important meeting, and say he is so right. A royalty is not a tax; it 
is an agreement. It is a payment made by oil companies that have the 
privilege of drilling on the property which belongs to the United 
States of America. Those funds go to the Federal Treasury. Part of them 
go to the State treasury, and they are used for environmental purposes 
and for purposes of education.
  I would like to complete my time that remains at this point--
reserving the remainder that I have. I have a long time left. I do not 
intend to use all of that time. I hope soon we will have a chance to 
make an agreement when this would come to an end, this whole debate. We 
are not there yet. We are finding out how many colleagues want to come 
over.
  But there was a comment made on the floor about the Senator from 
California by a few of my colleagues. I do

[[Page 22355]]

not mind them saying whatever they wish. I do not have any desire to 
stop them because I can take care of myself. But I want to respond to 
the statements that were made.
  The point we have been making consistently on our side is that when 
the oil companies do not pay their fair share of royalties, the 
Treasury is robbed of funds that are necessary for the environment and 
for education. My colleagues said--particularly Senator Craig said; and 
he did not give me the chance to respond, so I want to respond now--
that Senator Boxer here is complaining that the oil companies aren't 
paying their fair share of royalties, and yet she leads the fight 
against offshore oil drilling in her State--which, by the way, I am 
extremely proud he mentioned--and she does not want to cut down our 
trees--which I am very happy to mention because I think that is our 
heritage.
  The point is, that is not what this is about because this Senator 
from California wants a strong California economy. What that means is, 
you preserve the forest, you preserve the beautiful redwood trees, you 
preserve the beautiful environment. Because if you allow indiscriminate 
and additional offshore oil drilling--we have plenty going on right 
now. How many leases? Forty leases are being drilled. If we allow more, 
it destroys our economy.
  Tourism is our No. 1 important economic resource, so if we destroy 
that, we are done for. So by my fighting to limit offshore oil 
drilling, by my fighting not to allow indiscriminate cutting down of 
beautiful old-growth trees, I am, in fact, preserving the economy and 
increasing the revenues that go to my State.
  What are we left with? We are left with what the oil companies have 
to pay for the offshore oil tracts that they are drilling and the 
onshore oil tracts that they are drilling currently. This isn't an 
argument about new drilling. This isn't an argument about new cutting 
down of trees. This is an argument about the status quo. We have many 
leases in California that are being drilled.
  We expect the oil companies to be good public citizens. We expect the 
oil companies to pay their fair share. The good news is that 95 percent 
of them are paying their fair share. Good for them. They are good 
corporate citizens. They are doing the right thing. There are about 777 
oil companies that are doing the right thing, that are paying the fair 
market value. Unfortunately, there are about 44 companies that are not.
  The Hutchison amendment, which is supported by the Senator from New 
Mexico, and many others, allows those 44 companies to continue to 
underpay this royalty payment. It is time to put a stop to this, my 
friends. I hope we will do that. I am not very hopeful, in essence, 
that this will happen, but maybe some people listening to this debate 
will have a change of heart, and maybe in the vote we will get into the 
40s today. Maybe that will send a signal that this is a tough call.
  I see my friend from New Mexico has come to the floor, and under the 
unanimous consent agreement, my friend from Texas now has full right to 
give her time to anyone she wants at 4:15. So I yield the floor and get 
it back at 5:15.
  I thank my colleagues for their patience.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield up to 15 minutes to my colleague from New 
Mexico, who is the cosponsor of this amendment and who is doing a super 
job of not only explaining this but also working on the balanced budget 
that is so important for our country. In fact, the reason he has not 
been on the floor with me today is because he is working so hard to 
make sure we do keep the balanced budget, that we do try to make sure 
we are responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollars.
  I commend him for all he does for our country and yield him up to 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I first thank Senator Hutchison for her 
kind remarks. I tell her, as cosponsor, what a pleasure it is to work 
with her. We have been sponsor or cosponsor--depending on the year--of 
this measure for the last 3 years. Hang in there, I say to the Senator. 
We have not lost yet. We will not lose this time either because we are 
right.
  I want to give a quick summary of the issues, as I see them. When you 
get right down to it, it isn't all that complicated.
  First, we need to have new MMS regulations, but the regulations they 
steadfastly insist on putting forth are fatally flawed. During the 
moratorium that the Congress has imposed, several of us--Senators 
Landrieu, Nickles, Thomas, Hutchison, Enzi, Breaux, Murkowski, and 
others--have tried to get the agency to fix the regulations, and they 
stubbornly refuse. In fact, at the request of the administration, we 
have all sat around the table on at least two occasions, if not more, 
with the MMS people and the oil people, sitting around talking about 
the flaws in it, as the industry sees it. But they refuse to take care 
of the real problems and stubbornly insist they are right.
  Procedurally, the regulation writing process has been tainted. Let me 
make sure everybody understands that. People involved in writing the 
regulations were taking $350,000 payments from the Project on 
Government Oversight, POGO. When the procedure is contaminated, the 
best way to proceed is to discard the tainted work product and start 
over. That is why we have a country with laws. Process is important. 
People writing regulations are not supposed to be paid by someone who 
has an interest in the outcome.
  Can you imagine if the Senate were debating an issue and the shoe was 
on the other foot what we would be hearing here on the floor? If 
somebody had taken money, in this case, from the oil or gas companies, 
think where we would be. The whole process would be thrown out. We need 
to get to the bottom of the $350,000 payments from the Project on 
Government Oversight, which is known as POGO.
  Senators Murkowski, Hutchison, Nickles, and I have written several 
letters to Secretary Babbitt on this issue. Because of the procedural 
irregularities alone, the moratorium should remain in place until 
satisfactory answers are provided regarding the wrongdoing. It has been 
months, and we really have no satisfactory explanation.
  That is absurd. No other description is accurate. These MMS 
regulations are unworkable, arbitrary, complicated, and beyond what 
they ought to be. One producer with one well with one kind of oil would 
have to value his oil in 10 different ways. There is no justification 
for such complexity. It can only be labeled an abuse of power.
  In addition, the MMS could even second guess, audit, and sue that 
producer on seven different theories. This is a scheme that is 
unnecessarily complicated and plainly unworkable. We ought to be able 
to do better. Regardless of which industry is on the other side of 
this, we ought to be able to do it better and make it workable. My 
conclusion is that these regulations are borderline absurd.
  The proposed rules exceed the MMS authority. These regulations raise 
royalty rates by imposing a nonexistent and recently quasi-judicially 
rejected duty to market. The proposed rules are premised on a rejected 
legal theory called duty to market.
  The relationship between the producer and the MMS is spelled out in 
the lease. It is a concise document defining the responsibility and 
duties of the producer and the MMS. Oil is valued at the lease, period. 
That is what the lease says. The lease is based upon statutory language 
in the law.
  The Mineral Lands Act, 30 USC 226(b), which governs leases for 
onshore Federal lands, specifically states:

       A lease shall be conditioned upon the payment of a royalty 
     rate of not less than 12.5 percent of amount or value of the 
     production removed or sold from the lease; [that is] at the 
     time the oil is removed from the well.

  That is the definition.
  The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 USC 1331, et seq., governs 
Federal leases for drilling offshore. The act requires offshore leases 
to pay:


[[Page 22356]]

       A royalty to the lessor on oil and gas . . . saved, removed 
     or sold from the lease.

  By regulation, MMS wants to unilaterally rewrite the leases and the 
law and create a duty to market out of thin air. Duty to market is 
Government mooching because it wants to increase the royalty amount 
owed but will not allow a deduction for the costs incurred in getting 
the higher price.
  In other words, they would like the higher of the prices at the 
wellhead or at some other point. And if the higher one happens to be 
downstream with a lot of costs involved in getting it there, they don't 
even want to permit you to deduct the cost of getting it from the 
wellhead to the downstream or upstream source. They want to get the 
highest royalty and, thus, make the business swallow, without 
deductibility, the cost of getting it there.
  We don't do that anywhere in American capitalism. We don't do it in 
our IRS. We don't do it in simple, good CPA accounting procedures.
  By analogy, under today's law, the MMS bases its royalty valuation on 
essentially the wholesale price for the oil. Under the proposed rule, 
they are basing the royalty on the retail price, which is not 
authorized by Federal law. The rule does not allow certain 
transportation and other costs necessary to get the higher price to be 
deducted from the royalty payment.
  When I went to law school, I was taught that one party couldn't 
unilaterally change a contract. When I went to law school, regulations 
were to implement, not rewrite, the law. Regulations were to be 
consistent with the law. I was taught that agencies did not have the 
authority to rewrite contracts through regulations. MMS lawyers must 
have missed that week of law school because that is exactly what they 
are trying to do now. If MMS can change contracts through regulation, 
in direct violation of the law of the land, why can't other agencies do 
the same?
  For example, why can't Medicare unilaterally, without congressional 
approval, change its contract with Medicare recipients and say: You 
have a duty to stay well; Medicare won't pay your Medicare bills 
because you breached your duty to stay well? That would be absurd, just 
as this new way of charging royalties is absurd.
  If we allow MMS to change the royalty rate, there is nothing to keep 
the IRS from saying: We want to get more money from American families. 
So they will issue some complicated regulations and raise their taxes. 
That would be a usurpation of the exclusive role of Congress. What MMS 
is trying to do is a usurpation of the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
Congress.
  There is no duty to market in the lease. There is no court-ordered 
duty to market in the law of the land. It is a figment of the ``tax-
raising imagination'' of MMS. They want to raise royalty rates, and 
that is it. Creating a duty to market when none exists usurps the 
prerogatives of the Congress and ignores the precedents set by the 
Department's own review board.
  In May, the Interior Board of Land Appeals, known as the IBLA, ruled 
that there was no duty to market in a case known as Seagull Energy 
Corporation, Case No. 148 IBLA 3100 (1999). The IBLA has the expertise 
in these royalty cases. This was a 1999 case before the IBLA.
  Secretary Babbitt reversed that in a case involving Texaco, Case No. 
MMS-92-0306-0&G. The Secretary unilaterally, and in direct 
contravention of the moratorium imposed by this committee, overruled 
its own Board of Land Appeals.
  I want to commend Senator Nickles for developing legislation to 
clarify the authority MMS has regarding oil royalty valuation. Simply 
stated--and I believe he is right--it stands for the proposition that 
there has never been, is not, nor ever shall be a duty to market. If 
you read a Federal oil and gas lease, there is no mention of a duty to 
market. It has been the Mineral Management Service position that the 
duty to market is an implied covenant in the lease. This legislation 
says the MMS is wrong. That is what the legislation Senator Nickles has 
introduced, working its way through Congress, says.
  Let me back up and explain the issue and why this legislation is 
needed. Oil and gas producers doing business on Federal leases pay 
royalties to the Federal Government based on fair market value. Under 
this administration, this is easier said than done.
  One of the longstanding disputes between Congress and the MMS has 
been the development of workable royalty valuation regulations that can 
articulate just exactly what fair market value is.
  Cynthia Quarterman, former director of MMS, set out the Interior 
Department's position that fair market value includes a duty to market 
the lease production for the mutual benefit of the lessee and the 
lessor but without the Federal Government paying its share of the 
costs. Many of these costs are transportation costs, and they are 
significant. MMS calls it a duty to market. I believe it is the Federal 
Government mooching, trying to get paid without bearing its share of 
the cost.
  The bill states congressional intent: No duty to market; no Federal 
Government mooching.
  Let me be clear: Where there is a duty to market, it is a matter 
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Congress. It is not the job 
of lawyers at MMS to raise the congressionally set royalty rate through 
the back door. The so-called duty to market is a backdoor royalty 
increase, and there can be no doubt about it. The MMS has been unable 
to develop workable royalty valuation rules, and Congress has had to 
impose a moratorium on these regulations. The core issue has been the 
duty to market, and I believe I have explained why this is a serious 
problem.
  Nobody is attempting to do anyone a favor. Nobody is attempting to be 
prejudicial toward the MMS and the Federal Government's tax take. What 
we are talking about is simple, plain fairness. I won't say equity, 
because as a matter of fact it is law, not equity, that sets this. It 
is probably equitable also.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico 
because we have talked earlier about taxing expenses. That is exactly 
what he is talking about. The idea that we would introduce into tax 
policy in this country the taxation of expenses is, A, outrageous, and, 
B, if it is going to be done, let us do it straight up; let us let 
Congress pass a law saying we are going to tax expenses. It won't just 
be oil companies; it will be other companies as well.
  Of course, I think that is a bad policy because I can't imagine we 
would do something that would hurt our economy anymore. Nevertheless, 
if we are going to do it, it certainly shouldn't be done by a Federal 
agency that isn't accountable to anyone. I don't think Congress would 
be doing its responsibility if we allowed that to happen without our 
imprimatur.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico for clarifying the duty to 
market.
  It is a very important technical point that is just one more showing 
of why this is so unfair and why we must do something to correct it.
  I want to make a quick announcement, and then I am going to yield up 
to 10 minutes to the senior Senator from Louisiana.
  For the information of all Senators, the Senator from California and 
I have talked about how much longer this debate would go. It appears 
that we have an agreement that we would be looking at two stacked votes 
between 6 and 6:15 tonight, one on the Hutchison amendment, and one on 
final passage of the Interior appropriations bill, which has been so 
ably led by the occupant of the chair.
  With that, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, 
who has been a great ally in this fight. There is nobody who 
understands the importance of oil jobs to our country and the stability 
of energy in our country than the senior Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for 
yielding. I appreciate it very much. I really

[[Page 22357]]

wasn't going to say anything again. I thought I said enough on this 
issue. I think the Senate probably has debated far too long on this 
issue.
  What is surprising to me is what the arguments have been about. I 
don't think they are directly related to the issue at hand. I think it 
is important for us to try to understand what the issue is. Is it that 
we don't like oil companies, or is the issue that we like the 
environment, or is the issue that we don't like education, or that we 
do like education? No.
  The issue is very simple and not complex at all. The law that was 
passed by the Congress--I was on the committee in the House that wrote 
the bill in 1976. We wrote the OCS Lands Act of 1976. We determined at 
that time that offshore oil companies that produce oil on Federal lands 
and the OCS would pay the General Treasury one-sixth of the value of 
the oil. That is the law; it is one-sixth of the value of the oil.
  We established that back in 1976. It was one-eighth before that. 
Companies, every year, pay one-sixth of the fair market value of the 
oil. That doesn't go to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It goes 
to the General Treasury. Congress then appropriates that money to the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund, appropriates it for defense purposes, 
appropriates it for health purposes, and everything else Congress does.
  That is what the companies have been paying every year--one-sixth of 
the fair market value of the oil. Last year, they paid about $4.7 
billion, I think, in royalties for the right to produce that oil on 
Federal lands in our country.
  Now, the issue is a very narrow issue. How do you determine what the 
fair market value of the oil is? It is even more narrow than that. It 
is what a company is entitled to deduct in determining that fair market 
value.
  I listened intently to my good friend, the Senator from Michigan, 
with his chart showing why independents paid one price and integrated 
major companies paid a different price for producing oil on the same 
adjacent leases. There is a very simple explanation of why that is the 
way it is. The Senator from Michigan would never argue with the fact 
that if a Michigan automobile company built a car in Detroit and then 
sold that car in Louisiana, that Michigan automobile manufacturer would 
not be able to add the cost of transporting that car to New Orleans to 
the price he got for the vehicle. Of course, the big company would be 
able to do that. That would be part of the cost of doing business. He 
would build the car in Michigan, transport it to New Orleans, sell it, 
and add the transportation cost to the price of the car. No one would 
think that would be unusual.
  The same principle affects oil companies, as well. In determining the 
fair market value, you find out where they sell it. A legitimate 
deduction is transporting it to the place of the sale. The difference 
between the independent companies and the major companies in the same 
area is they sell it at different places. The independent will sell it 
when it comes out of the ground. He will sell it at the wellhead. An 
integrated company would not sell it at the wellhead but would put the 
oil in a transportation pipeline and send it to a point where it is 
sold down the line.
  Would anybody argue that the cost of transporting the oil from the 
time it is brought out of the ground to the time it is eventually sold 
is not a legitimate cost of producing and selling that product? Of 
course, not. Just as the cost of transporting that car from Michigan to 
New Orleans is a legitimate cost of producing and selling it the first 
time you have a sale; it is a legitimate add-on to the price of the 
product. So, too, is the cost of transporting the oil from the well to 
the place of the first sale. It is a legitimate deduction for the cost 
of producing that product.
  That is really what we are arguing about. The Department of the 
Interior and Minerals Management say they don't agree that a cost of 
transporting it should be a legitimate deduction, or maybe some of it 
should but not all of it. The companies say they think it all should be 
deductible. The MMS says just part of it. That is the fight.
  This fight is not about education or welfare or defense. It is a very 
narrow issue. The Senator from Texas is merely saying: Please, let's 
make them talk a little bit more about trying to resolve this very 
narrow issue. Oh, we can let the rule go through, and it is going to be 
litigated from here to who knows where. That is going to cost the 
Government and the taxpayers and the companies a lot of money, and it 
is not going to resolve anything--certainly not in 12 months. We will 
be in litigation in courts all over the country litigating what they 
think is a legitimate deduction versus what the company thinks.
  The Senator from Texas has suggested we pause for 12 months and say 
negotiate out what is a legitimate deduction for transporting the oil 
from the time it is brought out of the ground to the time it reaches 
its first sale. There is nothing mysterious about that. We always argue 
with companies about what is and is not legitimate. My State has sued 
oil companies right and left, disagreeing on the interpretation of a 
legitimate deduction. The issue is whether you are going to allow 
transportation costs to be deducted or not. It is not whether or not 
you like oil companies. Hate them; I don't care.
  The question is simply fairness about what a legitimate deduction 
should be with regard to determining the fair market value of the oil. 
Oil companies have said: Let's put an end to this. We will give you the 
oil and you sell it and determine the fair market value. The Government 
says: No, we don't want to do that; we want you to market it and get a 
fair market value for it.
  It is not a question about anybody lying, cheating, stealing, or 
trying to rip off the Government, or anything else. Companies have an 
obligation to represent their stockholders and the millions of 
employees they have. The Government has an obligation to be fair. The 
only thing the amendment of the Senator from Texas says is, let's avoid 
litigation and quit fighting.
  It is unfortunate that we got into a debate about whether we like oil 
companies or not. That is not the issue. Oil companies have paid ever 
since they have had production on Federal lands. Like I said, $4.7 
billion was paid just last year to the General Treasury, and rightfully 
so, as the cost of being able to produce energy on Federal lands. In my 
State and on other Federal lands around the coastal areas of this 
country, it will continue to be paid. It is a very narrow issue. This 
is not a monumental deal that we should be talking about. We should not 
be involved in cloture votes and arguing about something that is 
relatively so small.
  Some of the Senators say $88 million is being lost. It is not being 
lost. It is a dispute as to whether it is a legitimate deduction or 
not.
  I think we eventually will pass the amendment and, hopefully, the oil 
companies will sit down in the offices of the Interior Department and 
negotiate instead of meeting in courthouses and having to litigate. I 
just hope we can move on--adopt this measure and get on with the many 
other things that are more pressing than whether we should deduct 
transportation costs or not.
  That is the only issue that is on the table. You can talk about 
anything else, but the issue is only what are legitimate transportation 
costs from the time the oil comes out of the ground to the time it is 
sold at the first sale. I suggest that this is not something that you 
tie up the Senate for as long as it has been. It should be negotiated 
out by technicians, lawyers, but it should be negotiated, not 
litigated.
  I thank the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I 
think he has shown exactly what the problem is, why what is being 
proposed is so unfair, and why we on a bipartisan basis have said to 
the MMS: We want you to go back to the drawing board, and we want you 
to do something that is fair, simple and understandable, and then we 
will be supportive.
  I thank him for his leadership in this area.
  Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes for the distinguished Senator 
from

[[Page 22358]]

Oklahoma, the assistant majority leader, Mr. Nickles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I compliment my colleague from 
Texas, Senator Hutchison, for outstanding work on this issue, and also 
several other people who have spoken on the issue, including Senator 
Domenici and Senator Gramm from Texas.
  I have been a little disappointed in the tenor of the debate by 
people on the other side of this issue. In the Senate, we certainly 
have the right to have disagreements on issues, but in some cases 
sometimes debate is not a credit to the Senate. Everyone is entitled to 
their own opinion. But certainly some of the insinuations that have 
been made on the floor today--that people are doing this because they 
owe big oil or they received contributions--is very offensive to this 
Senator. I think Senators need to be very cognizant of the rules of the 
Senate not to impugn the integrity or the intentions of Senators.
  In 1996, this Congress passed legislation called the Royalty Fairness 
and Simplification Act by an overwhelming margin with bipartisan 
support in the Senate. I sponsored the bill and it was supported by 
Democrats and signed by President Clinton. The purpose of that 
legislation was to simplify the royalty process.
  The MMS rule proposal flies in the face of that action. The President 
signed the bill in 1996. The proposal now put out by the MMS is the 
opposite, it is not a simplification.
  If you look at this chart, you can see that this rule is not 
workable. To insinuate that people who oppose this rule are beholding 
to big oil, or they are against schoolkids is wrong.
  The MMS proposal on royalties simply will not work and to state on 
the floor that it is going to waste millions of dollars, and we are 
depriving kids is not factual.
  If this rule goes into effect, it will be an invitation for 
litigation. Instead of the States getting more money, or cities getting 
more money, they will get more litigation. The attorneys handling the 
cases might make more money.
  Then they imply that maybe they have evidence from whistleblowers 
showing intent to deceive. We know there are whistleblowers. In the 
recent case where one ``whistleblower'' testified, I hate to tell you 
that before a jury trial in Long Beach it was decided against the 
plaintiffs, against the city of Long Beach against the supposed 
whistleblower. That was a 14-year case. There have been three 
decisions, all of which big oil won. I doubt that the jury was trying 
to decide the case in favor of big oil. It so happens the jury decided 
that the claimants in this case were wrong.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question 
on that very point?
  Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we have heard so much rhetoric on the 
Senate floor about a former ARCO employee who testified that the oil 
companies were trying to cheat the State of California and the Federal 
Government. In fact, that ARCO employee was the very same person who 
was involved in the Long Beach lawsuit about which the Senator is 
speaking. I ask the Senator if it isn't true that the jurors rejected 
his testimony?
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is exactly right. I appreciate the 
clarification. That is the point I am making. When you hear the 
opponents of this amendment basing almost everything on this 
disgruntled employee, it just doesn't make sense. I didn't sit in on 
the case. I wasn't a juror. I was not involved in this case of 14 
years. But I know the Exxon company won. Big oil won. The jurors 
decided that this disgruntled employee wasn't telling the truth, or 
didn't have a case.
  When you look at the MMS proposed royalty scheme, you can say 
mistakes have been made. I will promise you that if we pass this MMS 
proposal as it now stands before us, you will have more litigation, 
more mistakes. It is an invitation for litigation. Sure, there will be 
some settlements and some wins and some losses. But this is not a 
workable situation.
  I will mention that the present law is not as good as it should be 
and we certainly shouldn't make it worse. You shouldn't be changing the 
rules of the game and changing contracts. Every law of the land says 
royalty is based on the value of oil at the lease. Now you have the MMS 
saying: Let's include ``duty to market.'' What does that mean? We have 
had 50 years or more of experience--ever since we have been producing 
oil. We have the experience of collecting royalties based on the value 
of the oil at the lease. We don't know what ``duty to market'' means.
  This is something new from the Clinton administration that I will 
assure you, if it becomes law will create more problems. If it does go 
into effect, two things will be wrong: One, MMS is not supposed to make 
law. We are the legislators. We are supposed to be the ones who make 
the law and not some unelected bureaucrat at MMS. It shouldn't become 
law, period. If this rule becomes final and is implemented, it wouldn't 
raise more money. It would create more litigation.
  What I want on royalties is for them to be fair and simple and for 
the companies to pay exactly what they owe--no more, no less. The 
royalty rate is 12\1/2\ percent. If we want to raise it to 13 or 14 
percent, that is a decision this Congress can make.
  But to say we are going to keep the same percentage, yet we are going 
to have a new obligation called ``duty to market,'' which includes 
marketing the oil away from the lease and other new obligations--which 
are kind of hard to define--but, we will try to work that out. There is 
some ambiguity. It is an invitation to litigation. All that will happen 
is that the lawyers will make more money.
  Speaking of lawyers, I want to raise one other thing. It is very 
troublesome to me to think that you have two Federal employees--one now 
a former Federal employee--actually getting paid $350,000 for their 
involvement in this issue. They were somewhat involved in implementing 
this rule.
  Think of this. Here you have individuals involved in writing the 
rule. These same people help groups that sue these companies, or sue on 
behalf of the Government, and get paid a bunch of money--Federal 
employees. Are we going to allow IRS agents to get a percentage of the 
take if they go after some big company? If they get a big settlement, 
are two or three employees supposed to get a percentage of that? That 
sounds like corruption to me. We have had two people that received 
$350,000 and we have an administration that wouldn't even say it was 
wrong.
  This is the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. Yesterday we 
had the FBI testify that this administration completely thwarted their 
efforts to investigate campaign finance abuses. We had an FBI agent who 
served for 25 years who said never in his history did he have an 
investigation in which he was not thwarted, time and time again, by the 
Justice Department during this administration.
  In addition to that we have an administration that grants clemency to 
16 terrorists, while the FBI and others said: Don't do it. These are 
terrorists. They are a threat to the United States.
  Did the administration listen to the FBI? No. Did they even consult 
with the FBI? The FBI said no.
  That was a mistake. This administration's corruption, including two 
employees who were involved in this rulemaking and ended up getting 
paid $350,000, is deplorable. It is despicable. It shouldn't be 
applauded. It shouldn't be rewarded.
  But most importantly, article I of the Constitution says that 
Congress shall pass the laws and says Congress shall raise the taxes. 
It doesn't say unelected bureaucrats at MMS can rewrite the rules, 
raise royalty rates, or raise taxes. They do not have that right. That 
belongs to elected officials. Then if we do a bad job, people can kick 
us out. They can vote us down. They can say: We don't like the laws you 
passed. What recourse do they have against unelected bureaucrats? None.
  There is a reason our forefathers gave us this system of government.

[[Page 22359]]

They gave us a good system of government, and we should never allow 
some bureaucracy the opportunity to set rules and regulations that 
gives them the force and the power to raise taxes.
  Should we have royalties that are fair? Yes. Should we have royalties 
that are accurate and a royalty system that people can understand? You 
bet. Should people pay exactly what they owe? Certainly.
  Members might wonder where I am getting my information. I am chairman 
of the subcommittee, and we held a hearing regarding this issue. We had 
a lot of experts in the field saying this is not workable. It is not 
the money. It is not the money in any way, shape, or form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I 
am very pleased he covered some of those issues.
  We have heard a lot about the lawsuit and especially the employees of 
the Federal Government directly involved with this rulemaking taking 
$350,000 each from an organization called POGO. That does not pass the 
smell test. I am very pleased the Senator from Oklahoma pointed that 
out. That is another reason this rule needs to go back to the drawing 
board. That is not the American way.
  I am happy to yield up to 15 minutes to the Senator from Montana, 
Senator Burns, who has been very active in this debate and who 
understands from a small businessman's point of view how important it 
is we have fairness in taxation in our country.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Texas. I also want 
to say it might not pass the smell test; it doesn't even pass the 
giggle test.
  I want to drop back a little bit, away from the rhetoric we have 
heard, and look at it from a practical point of view. We have heard a 
lot about big oil ripoff. What are folks in California paying for 
gasoline today? Do you think the oil companies are going to pay that? 
No, they are not going to pay it. The consumer is going to pay it. The 
people who buy the gasoline and the petroleum products are going to pay 
it. Big oil, little oil, or whatever is not going to pay that. Do you 
think they will eat this and swallow it? Get a life.
  One of these days, we are going to be hit by a big bolt of common 
sense around here and we will not be able to handle it.
  Let's step back and think. I know the Senator from California is 
concerned about schools and children. I want her to come to 
Musselshell, MT. The first oil was discovered in Montana in that 
county--very active. A lot of it is on public lands. Then we kept 
getting tougher and tougher, and pretty soon the oil industry left the 
county. We are closing schools because there are no kids to attend. 
Nobody is making a paycheck.
  Let's take a look and see what happens. Yes, the Government holds 
those lands in trust. They are public lands. Does the Government invest 
one penny in the drilling or the exploration of that resource? It does 
not. Does it buy any of the licenses? Does it offer any of the 
equipment? Does it pay any of the people to drill and to take the 
chance there may be oil here and there may not be? If there isn't, does 
the Government pay for the loss? Not a penny.
  A deal was struck. If we find oil there, the companies say: We will 
give the Government one-eighth ownership in that well. That means one 
out of every eight buckets that comes out of the ground in crude 
belongs to the Government, and it sells it wherever it wants to sell. 
If they don't like the price they are getting from the refinery, I 
suggest they can take a truck out there next to the well, and every 
eighth bucket that comes up, put that eighth bucket in their truck, and 
they can take it anywhere and sell it anywhere they want, and they will 
get market for it. There are a lot of buyers for it.
  That was the deal. That is getting your product or your royalty at 
the wellhead, as called for by law.
  Now we have some folks who say: That is not good enough; we want the 
retail price. In other words, we don't want to pay any of the 
transportation, we don't want to pay any of the refining, we don't want 
to pay all of the costs, but we want the end result.
  That is not the deal. This other is put together by law. That law is 
being changed by an unelected representative who wouldn't be known to 
my constituency if he or she walked out today.
  Who gets hurt by this change? It is not big oil. They don't get hurt 
because they will pass the cost on to the consumer.
  Again, I want to know what they are paying per gallon of gasoline in 
California. It is pretty high out in my State, too.
  Do you know who gets hurt? It is the little guy. It slows down their 
ability for capital formation, for exploration, and then when they find 
it, they are taxed more for it. They want to rewrite the law.
  An independent producer will have to pay a higher tax. I want that in 
all capital letters--T-A-X. That is what royalty essentially is. Then 
they will still have to compete with the low price of foreign oil.
  America, if you think you are secure tonight, 55 percent of our oil 
comes now from offshore. More and more public lands are being cut off 
from exploration due to some whacky laws and some people who do not 
understand the business. They do it in the name of the environment. Use 
common sense. Those folks who want to shut off the oil supply in this 
country don't know what lines are and don't know what an economy can't 
do if we have no oil.
  A while ago they talked about ethanol. I support the ethanol 
situation. It is renewable. It is clean. We still have some problems 
when temperatures get extremely low, as they do in Montana, but 
nonetheless it is an alternative. I support the tax credits for 
ethanol.
  A tax is essentially what a royalty is. The end result is that the 
little man can't do it; he simply cannot make a living. When times are 
looking better for domestic oil, the Federal Government comes rushing 
in and raises the cost of production.
  I can remember when Billings, MT, was pretty active with independent 
oil people, from land leasers to exploration to drillers. Those folks 
are just about all gone, because they have driven all of the little 
people away. They have closed off the lands that might have, and do 
have, great prospects for oil and gas reserves.
  Oil prices are not that strong. Have they stabilized? No, I don't 
think so. In fact, I will tell you now, no commodity is making money in 
this country. I don't care if you are talking about oil or products 
that come from mining or timber or farms; it does not make any 
difference. The spread between what we get at the production level and 
what is happening at the retail level is unbelievable.
  I will give you an example. If you want to go buy some Wheaties in 
your grocery store, it will cost you $3.75 to $4 a pound for Wheaties. 
Think about it. We cannot get $2.25 for a 60-pound bushel of wheat. 
Something is wrong.
  The same thing happens here because everybody has to have a little 
bigger piece in the process from where you take it from Mother Earth, 
who gives us all new wealth. The only place new wealth is produced is 
from Mother Earth. That is true to the time it gets to the consumer. 
Everybody has to have a bigger piece. Now the Federal Government comes 
along and says: I think we need a little more, too, because we need to 
collect some more taxes. We need to build a bigger bureaucracy. That is 
not the way we do business.
  Let's look at the royalty increase and put it in perspective of the 
entire industry. Oil prices still are not strong. Domestic oil 
production is still down. The industry is still hurting. Jobs are still 
being threatened. But our paycheck does not come from the oil patch, so 
we do not get excited. Our check comes every 2 weeks, just like 
clockwork. We risk not much--a little time. That is about all. Then all 
at once we are insensitive to those people

[[Page 22360]]

who really power our economy--tax them again.
  I want to bring back to our attention what Senator Hutchison pointed 
out earlier. This cost will be passed on to the American consumers. You 
are kidding yourself if you do not believe it. Montanans rely on their 
private vehicles to get around. It is 148,000 square miles from Alzada, 
MT, to Eureka, MT. It is further than from here to Chicago, IL. We know 
what spaces are and we also know what it costs to drive them.
  We also have reserves in oil and gas, and if you keep raising these 
costs, the opportunity to get those reserves becomes more diminished 
every day. So while the Senator from California contends she is saving 
all this royalty money for the taxpayer, the person who actually knows 
the system tells us they will get less revenues during the period of 
chaos that will ensue as they try to sort out the flawed MMS proposal. 
Our income to the Treasury will go down; it will not be more.
  I have a letter from the Office of the Governor of Montana. I ask 
unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 State of Montana,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Helena, MT, September 13, 1999.
     Hon. Conrad Burns,
     Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Burns: I am writing to express this 
     administration's support for the Hutchinson amendment to the 
     Department of Interior Appropriation Bill which would extend 
     the moratorium on Minerals Management Service (MMS) rule 
     making.
       The complexity and uncertainty inherent in the proposed MMS 
     rules may be a disincentive for industry, especially 
     Montana's independent producers, to lease and produce oil and 
     gas from federal lands. Such a disincentive will negatively 
     impact the production of oil and gas, within Montana, 
     resulting in less royalty revenue for the state.
       The moratorium will provide additional time for all 
     interested parties to develop a fair, workable and efficient 
     plan to collect federal royalties. During this additional one 
     year moratorium, all parties must work in earnest toward the 
     successful conclusion of this issue.
       Thank you for your support and understanding.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mick Robinson,
                                               Director of Policy.

  Mr. BURNS. Reading a portion:

       The complexity and uncertainty inherent in the proposed MMS 
     rules may be a disincentive for the industry . . .
       The moratorium will provide additional time for all 
     interested parties to develop a fair, workable and efficient 
     plan to collect federal royalties.

  In the meantime, royalties are lost. So let's get struck by a bolt of 
common sense. Let's quit being moon-eyed horses and jumping at shadows 
and the paper bag that blows out from the fence row. This is bad policy 
and we should not allow this to happen. I do not think the Senate 
should. I congratulate my friend from Texas for being the champion on 
this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana 
because he has made a very important point from the independent 
producers' standpoint. We have seen independent producers go out of 
business at a greater rate than ever in the history of our country in 
the last year because oil prices were so low they could not keep their 
employees and they had to go out of business. They could not afford to 
drill because their costs were higher than the price they could get.
  The Senator from Montana so ably represents that small businessman, 
that small businesswoman who is out there in the field, working so hard 
to make ends meet, trying not to let his or her employees go in a bad 
time.
  Now we have a situation where we could be putting the last nail in 
the coffin of those who are left. So I am very pleased he talked about 
the independents and small producers. I am going to talk a little bit 
more about that because it has been said in this debate that we are 
only talking about 5 percent, the big oil companies. But that is not 
the case.
  In fact, the small oil companies, the independent producers, have 
written letters to us, to me, saying: Please do not let this happen. 
This is going to affect our ability to say the price we are actually 
getting at the wellhead will not actually be what we are taxed on. That 
is what the new rule would do. It would say to the independent producer 
that it doesn't matter what you actually are getting at the wellhead, 
if someone pulls up and takes their oil right out of the ground. You 
have to pay a tax on what we say is the market price. We are going to 
go to the New York Mercantile Exchange to determine the price. We do 
not care if it is Odessa, TX. If we say the price is $22 and you are 
getting $21, you are going to pay a tax on $22. Is this America? My 
heavens.
  These are the companies affected by this new MMS rule, and it is 100 
percent of every company drilling, every company, small and large, that 
is going to have second-guessing of the prices, that is going to have 
indexing to the New York Mercantile Exchange, regardless of where they 
are, in Arkansas or West Virginia or Texas or Arizona. They will not be 
held to the determinations they make. So a small, independent producer 
who doesn't have a staff of lawyers isn't going to be able to say: OK, 
we have sold for $21 at the wellhead in Odessa, TX, and therefore, 
anyone else selling at the wellhead in Odessa, TX, take your chances. 
We may or may not say it is the same price. So every independent is 
affected.
  I appreciate the Senator from Montana pointing that out. Now I yield 
up to 5 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hutchison 
amendment to continue the moratorium on the Minerals Management Service 
rule. I thank her for the courageous work she has been doing on this 
issue. I want to speak to this from the standpoint of a State that has 
a number of small, independent oil producers. That is what we have in 
Kansas.
  I want to address a couple issues: No. 1, the perspective of the 
small, independent oil producers. I guess the dominant debate has been 
about big oil. I want to talk about small, independent oil producers 
such as we have.
  The second issue is we not become more dependent on foreign oil. We 
get 60 percent, actually more than 60 percent, from foreign sources, 
and we do not want to drive more of that production overseas.
  A third issue is a matter of priority to this body, and that is that 
we not let our duty to legislate be overtaken by a nonlegislative body. 
I appreciate the Senator from Texas bringing these issues to the 
forefront so we could debate them and talk about them on the Senate 
floor and, hopefully, get some sanity in this system.
  Our oil producers are just recovering from some of the lowest prices 
in 30 years. That has cost the oil and gas industry more than 67,000 
American jobs, a number of those in Kansas, and saw the closure of more 
than 200,000 oil and gas wells. That is the recent situation.
  A hike in the royalty rates will make a bad situation worse and could 
cause more domestic oil production to go overseas. At a time when we 
already are getting so much of it from overseas, to increase our 
dependency even more is a really ridiculous idea.
  It is up to Congress and not Federal agencies to establish public 
policies is my second point. The MMS clearly exceeded its authority by 
proposing to raise royalty rates without congressional authorization. 
No congressional committee or affected industry groups were notified 
before the final version of the rule was announced. The MMS has also 
tried to get around the congressional moratorium by changing Federal 
lease forms and taking other measures that are similar to the 
prohibited rule. These reckless actions have led me to believe that 
this agency is out of control, and it has led a number of our small, 
independent producers in Kansas not to trust this agency, or the sort 
of template they are setting up in the industry that is going to cost 
them more and cost more jobs and cost more oil production in this 
country and in Kansas.

[[Page 22361]]

  I do believe the current royalty rate valuations are fundamentally 
flawed and should be changed.
  The regulations proposed by the MMS will increase the amount of the 
royalties to be paid by assessing royalties on downstream values 
particularly, without full consideration of the costs on that small 
independent producer in Kansas who is just now digging out of some of 
the lowest prices in 30 years, all the jobs they have lost, and all the 
wells that have been plugged. And we are saying at this point in time: 
We really do not care for you; we want to just shove these additional 
costs on you and hurt you more, even though you are just now starting 
to climb out of the worst situation in 30 years.
  Goodness, we ought to think a little bit down the road ourselves and 
say: Is it wise that we do this on the small independent producer 
struggling to make a living, who wants to help support the United 
States and our energy needs of this country, and we do this now? I do 
not think that is wise at all.
  Finally, my point is, it is the responsibility of Congress to make 
policy decisions, not the MMS. Royalty rates are our responsibility. 
We, the Senate, have been elected by our constituents to make these 
difficult decisions, and we should not have our authority preempted by 
Federal bureaucrats. Some people may not like that conclusion, but that 
is the way it is. We are the policymakers. We are the people who should 
set these rates, not a Federal bureaucracy that is not elected, that is 
a nonlegislative body. That is what is taking place.
  In the short time I have, I thank my colleague from Texas for the 
great work she is doing on defending freedom, defending small 
independent oil and gas producers, defending us from becoming more 
dependent on foreign oil, and also defending the Senate's right to 
establish public policy, and not a nonlegislative body.
  I hope as well that people who are debating and tying notions of 
other considerations into this issue will step back and think for a 
second. Everybody I know in this body acts with integrity and honor, 
and that should not be attacked on some sort of unsubstantiated basis. 
People here do act with honor and with integrity.
  There are differences of opinion on this issue. Mine, from the 
perspective of Kansas, is that we need to be setting this, and not the 
MMS.
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I believe under the agreement I have the 
time now for 30 minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, at 5:15. There are 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am prepared to let the Senator start 
her time now. For Senators who are looking at our timetable, we have 
pretty much agreed we are looking at perhaps a 6 o'clock vote; 6 to 
6:15, but we are pushing closer to 6.
  Mrs. BOXER. I think we can get this done. Let me start.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have seen so many tears on behalf of the 
mom-and-pop oil companies that will be impacted if the Department of 
the Interior can do their job and collect the fair royalties. I looked 
at my chart again to make sure I was not misunderstanding. I will talk 
about the top seven companies that will be impacted by this rule:
  Shell: Their total revenues are $29 billion. I cannot remember when 
they were mom and pop. Maybe someday way back they were.
  Exxon: The real mom and pop, $134 billion in revenues.
  Chevron: $43 billion in revenues.
  Texaco: $45 billion in revenues.
  Marathon: $16 billion in revenues.
  Mobil Exploration and Production, U.S.: $81 billion.
  Conoco: $20 billion.
  And it goes on.
  The good news is that the small oil companies my friend from Kansas 
talked about are doing the right thing. Ninety-five percent of the oil 
companies are doing the right thing and paying their fair share of 
royalties. It is 5 percent of the companies, the largest companies, the 
vertically integrated companies, that are failing to pay their fair 
share.
  When we see these tears for the oil companies, I assure my friends, 
the small companies are doing the right thing; they are paying their 
fair share. It is the big ones that are not. We know they are involved 
in a deliberate scheme. We have that in testimony. All we are trying to 
do is stop them from continuing to rip off the taxpayers.
  The Hutchison amendment so far has lost taxpayers $88 million. This 
one will lose them $66 million. That is $154 million, and there is no 
end in sight. If you think this one will not be back next year--I don't 
know. We know the Senator originally had a much longer period of time 
on her amendment. She cut it back to about a year, but this thing has 
no end. This is the fourth time it has come up. There is no effort to 
resolve this situation.
  I want to talk about some of the comments made by some of my 
colleagues, and I ask that the Record show Democrats lodged no 
objection when the Senator from Oklahoma started to talk about the 
Presidential pardon of a few weeks ago. What does that have to do with 
this? We did not object. He made his point. It was fine. We know when 
you start talking about something off the topic, it is because you 
really are using the debate time. We are happy. You can talk about what 
you want.
  But five times the Senator from Wisconsin was interrupted when he 
tried to tie this amendment to oil company contributions. He did not do 
that; the New York Times did it. USA Today, which I would like to show, 
did it. The Los Angeles Times tied oil contributions to this amendment. 
And then, oh, they were shocked and Republican colleagues tried to stop 
Senator Feingold from talking about it.
  I will read what USA Today says. They say:

       Big oil has contributed more than $35 million to national 
     political committees and congressional candidates . . . a 
     modest investment in protecting the royalty-pricing 
     arrangement that's enabled the industry to pocket an extra $2 
     billion.

  Senator Feingold was simply talking about what USA Today talked about 
and what the New York Times on September 20 talked about. I will read 
what they say. New York Times:

         Battle Waged in the Senate Over Royalties by Oil Firms

       Oil companies drilling on Federal land have been accused of 
     habitually underpaying royalties they owe the Government. 
     Challenged in court, they have settled lawsuits, agreeing to 
     pay $5 billion.
       The Interior Department wants to rectify the situation by 
     making the companies pay royalties based on the market price 
     of the oil, instead of on a lower price set by the oil 
     companies themselves.

  They say:

       A simple issue? Not in the United States Senate.

  And they track oil company contributions.
  All I can say is, it is a legitimate thing to talk about, but five 
times the Senator from Wisconsin was interrupted making the point.
  I also want to respond to the fact that royalties are not a tax. If 
they were a tax, they would be in the Finance Committee. Royalties are 
an agreement the oil companies sign voluntarily for the privilege of 
drilling on land that belongs to the people of the United States of 
America.
  And for that privilege, they pay a small portion over to us, the 
taxpayers, to be used for parks and recreation, historical 
preservation, and in the States for education. Royalties are not a tax. 
If they were a tax, it would be in the Finance Committee.
  Let me also thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for 
bringing up the States. They argue for States rights day in and day 
out. You know what. I agree with them on this one. Let's hear what the 
States are saying.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I just 
received--or that just came to my attention--from the Western States 
Land Commissioners Association.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page 22362]]


                                                The Western States


                               Land Commissioners Association,

                                                    July 29, 1999.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Lott and Daschle: We, the undersigned members 
     of the Western States Land Commissioners Association, urge 
     you to assure that the Interior Appropriations Bill, S. 2466, 
     will allow the Department of Interior to Implement new 
     federal royalty crude oil pricing regulations. The 
     Department's proposed regulations would ensure that oil 
     companies would pay no more and no less than fair market 
     value for federal royalty oil. S. 2466 includes a provision 
     that would continue the ban on implementing the proposed 
     regulations until after June 30, 2001. This delay is costing 
     taxpayers $5 million per month.
       Most of the state agencies that are members of the Western 
     States Land Commissioners Association have a strong interest 
     in ensuring that oil companies pay the market value of 
     federal royalty oil. The member states of the Association use 
     their share in the revenues to support schools and other 
     beneficiaries. The failure of the oil companies to pay market 
     value for federal royalty crude reduces the revenues obtained 
     by the federal government and the states.
       The Department's Mineral Management Service (MMS) has been 
     eminently fair in proposing its new regulations. MMS has held 
     numerous public and private meetings for over two and a half 
     years to allow the industry to comment and the industry has 
     filed over two thousand pages of comments. Based on industry 
     concerns, MMS has revised its proposed regulations a number 
     of times to take into account industry's suggestions and 
     criticisms. For example, MMS has revised its proposed 
     regulations to recognize regional differences, particularly 
     for the Rocky Mountain Area.
       The proposed MMS regulations are very reasonable. If oil 
     companies sell royalty crude on arm's-length transactions, 
     they pay on the basis of prices they receive. If they do not 
     sell the oil on arm's-length transactions, they pay on the 
     basis of prices at market centers, adjusted for location and 
     quality differences, which are universally recognized to 
     result from competition among innumerable buyers and sellers.
       Oil companies presently use their posted prices to value 
     royalty oil. Posted prices are unilaterally set by individual 
     oil companies less than the market value of those crudes. In 
     contrast, the market prices proposed by MMS to value royalty 
     crude not sold by arm's-length transactions are set by 
     innumerable buyers and sellers and are publicly reported on a 
     daily basis.
       MMS' proposed switch from posted prices to market prices is 
     not a radically new concept:
       1. The State of Alaska uses the spot price of Alaska North 
     Slope crude oil quoted for delivery in the Los Angeles Basin 
     as the basis for royalties;
       2. ARCO, since the early 1990s, uses spot prices as the 
     basis of payments of royalties throughout the country; and
       3. The State of Texas/Chevron and State of Texas/Mobil 
     settlements rely on the use of spot prices for royalty 
     valuation purposes. Mobil settled for $45 million--a case 
     brought by the United States Department of Justice that Mobil 
     had underpaid federal royalties throughout the United States.
       The Department's comprehensive proposal is the logical 
     alternative to posted prices.
           Sincerely,
         Paul Thayer, Executive Officer, California State Lands 
           Commission; Ray Powell, M.S., D.V.M., Commissioner of 
           Public Lands, New Mexico State Land Office; M. Jeff 
           Hagener, Trust Land Administrator, Montana Department 
           of Natural Resources and Conservation; Curt Johnson, 
           Commissioner, South Dakota Office of School and Public 
           Lands; Charlie Daniels, Commissioner, Arkansas 
           Commissioner of State Lands; Robert J. Olheiser, North 
           Dakota Commissioner of University and School Lands; 
           Jennifer M. Belcher, Commissioner, Washington State 
           Department of Natural Resources; Douglas LaFollette, 
           Board Chair and Secretary of State, Wisconsin Board of 
           Commissioners of Public Lands; Mark W. Davis, Minerals 
           Director, Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners.

  Mrs. BOXER. This letter is signed by the State Lands Commissioners 
from these States: California, South Dakota, New Mexico, Arkansas, 
Montana, Washington State, Colorado, and Wisconsin. That is a sample. 
That is just this letter.
  What do they want? They want the Interior Department to be able to 
correct this problem. They oppose the Hutchison amendment, these people 
from these States.
  We also have comments by the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of 
Natural Resources, who says:

       The approach taken by MMS [Department of Interior's 
     Minerals Management Service] . . . will better protect 
     Alaska's interests.

  They oppose the Hutchison amendment.
  We heard from the Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands in a letter to 
Senators Lott and Daschle:

       The Department's comprehensive proposal is the logical 
     alternative to posted prices.

  They oppose the Hutchison amendment.
  California, the city of Long Beach:

       I urge you . . . to support [MMS] regulations . . .

  They oppose the Hutchison amendment.
  Colorado, Mark Davis, Minerals Director:

       This delay is costing taxpayers $5 million per month.

  He opposes the Hutchison amendment.
  Louisiana:

       To sum up, [the department in Louisiana] is supportive of 
     MMS' attempt to value . . . production in a more certain, 
     timely, and accurate manner. . . .

  Montana, a letter from the Supervisor of the Federal Royalty Program:

       . . . Montana believes that the rule is ready and should be 
     finalized.

  That was in 1998.
  New Mexico:

       It is our fervent hope that Congress will act so as not to 
     extend the current moratorium prohibiting the Department of 
     Interior from issuing a final rulemaking.

  North Dakota: This is from Robert Olheiser, North Dakota Commissioner 
of University and School Lands, in a letter to Senators Lott and 
Daschle:

       The Department's Minerals Management Service has been 
     eminently fair in proposing [these] regulations.

  It goes on.
  We have a letter from Texas. We have a letter from South Dakota, 
Washington, Wisconsin.
  I see that my friend from Florida is on the floor. I will stop when 
he is prepared to begin his remarks.
  Let me just say at this time--and then I will make concluding 
arguments when the Senator from Florida has completed in the remainder 
of the time--that we have a problem on our hands with 5 percent of the 
oil companies.
  We have to do justice. We have to do what is right. We have to listen 
to the whistleblowers who are risking themselves to come out and tell 
us there are schemes going on to deprive taxpayers of these royalty 
payments. We have to do the right thing. We have to listen to the 
States, the Consumer Federation of America--and how many groups? more 
than 50 groups--that stand in the public interest and say no to the 
Hutchison amendment.
  Now I yield the remainder of the time until a quarter of to the good 
Senator from Florida, Mr. Bob Graham.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator.
  I appreciate this opportunity to make a few remarks on the issues 
before us today, which I think has three component parts.
  The first relates to just what is involved in the change that has 
been recommended by the Department of the Interior, the change the 
amendment offered today would frustrate.
  I see we have the principal author of the amendment on the floor, and 
so I might ask a short series of questions, and hopefully, before we 
conclude this debate, we can have some further information.
  Based on the statement that was made earlier today, this increase 
that would be the result of the Department of the Interior's new 
regulatory change was characterized as a tax.
  It has been my understanding that what we are talking about is a 
contractual royalty payment; that is, a payment that is made by the 
user of this Federal resource--petroleum--as the economic condition of 
gaining access to that Federal resource.
  This is not a tax in terms of an imposed burden upon a commercial 
transaction. This is in the nature of a payment for a product which 
belongs to the people of the United States which is now going to be 
used by a specific private firm. I would like some discussion as to why 
the word ``tax'' is being used to apply to this transaction.
  A second concern I have from the earlier discussion of this amendment 
is

[[Page 22363]]

the issue of effect on consumers. It was inferred that the effect of 
this would be to directly increase the price of the petroleum that was 
used by the American consumer.
  It had been my understanding that the way in which the price of 
petroleum was controlled was in a world marketplace of petroleum and 
that individual companies did not have the power to pass on their cost 
to the ultimate consumer. If they do, then that infers a level of 
monopolistic control of the petroleum economy which raises its own set 
of concerns.
  So I would like to know by what economic relationship this particular 
group of oil companies would be able to pass on to their consumers 
whatever was ultimately considered to be the appropriate royalty level 
for their access to the resource that belongs to the American people.
  There has been a chart displayed which shows at the bottom the cost 
of the petroleum product itself, and then at the top the taxes which 
are levied.
  I would assume we are now talking about the bottom part of that chart 
because we are not talking about taxes, we are talking about royalties 
that are being paid.
  I would like to have some discussion as to just how much of that 
bottom portion of the chart is the issue that is at debate today.
  Clearly, no one says there should be no royalty paid to the taxpayers 
of America for the use of their resource. How much, therefore, of that 
total cost is what is at controversy.
  Finally, there is the issue of regulatory complexity. I have seen the 
chart that shows a rabbit warren of boxes and arrows and relationships. 
I would be interested in seeing a similar chart as to what the status 
quo is.
  Is the process by which we are arriving at the pricing mechanism for 
petroleum under the new Department of the Interior regulations 
significantly more complex than those which are being used to arrive at 
the method of pricing petroleum under the current standards? If so, 
where are the particular areas of increased or altered or even reduced 
complexity?
  So those would be three questions. I hope the proponents of this 
amendment will use some of their time to illuminate. So that is the 
first question.
  The second question is the effect of this debate on the Congress 
itself.
  I am a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the 
committee that has basic jurisdiction over this issue. There has been 
an inference that the Department of the Interior has gone beyond its 
rulemaking authority in adopting this provision. It has even been 
implied that maybe the Department of the Interior has been tainted by 
some of the activities of its individual personnel and the way in which 
this new rule was developed. Those are serious charges.
  As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--and I will 
be prepared, if the chairman or others will point out where I am in 
error--I do not believe we have held any hearings on this issue. Yet we 
have allowed this matter to now come to the Senate floor as a 
nongermane amendment to an appropriations bill, a position which is 
basically in conflict with our recently adopted rule that says we 
cannot offer matters of general legislation on appropriations bills. 
But by some relatively clever drafting--and I extend congratulations to 
those smart people--we have been able to evade the clear intent of the 
rule that says no legislation on an appropriation.
  In fact, this issue, the way in which it is being handled, makes the 
case as to why our rule is wise, that we ought to be dealing with 
legislation through committees that have responsibility for 
legislation, such as the Energy and Natural Resources Committee; we 
should not be doing it on an appropriations bill.
  It does raise the question of why we are doing this. There is a 
certain unseemliness to bringing up this issue in this manner. It 
raises the question our colleague from Wisconsin discussed earlier 
today; that is, Is this going to be the poster child for the mixture of 
decisions made by Congress and the economic influence, through campaign 
finance, of those industries that will be the clear beneficiary of 
those decisions?
  I personally have resisted those kinds of linkages because that puts 
everything we do under a cloud of suspicion. But the way in which this 
is being handled will give ammunition to those who wish to attack the 
basic integrity of this institution.
  It is unnecessary for us to lay ourselves open to that attack. What 
we ought to do is have a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, invite in all the people who are knowledgeable, have a 
serious public airing of this question, and then see if legislation 
should be passed to rein in excessive or inappropriate behavior by the 
Department of the Interior. We should not be doing this, passing 
legislation on an appropriations bill.
  The third issue is, What is at stake? The resources that will not 
become available as a result of the passage of this amendment, how 
would they otherwise have been deployed? The royalties that come from 
the Federal Government's leasing for oil and gas production are a key 
part of our public land trust. Currently, a portion of these royalties 
goes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund which provides the means 
by which a variety of Federal, State, and local activities have 
traditionally been funded.
  The Energy Committee is currently considering legislation that would 
expand and make permanent the use of other portions of this royalty 
program for a variety of uses. The Senator from Louisiana has 
introduced legislation that would have it used to offset some of the 
adverse impacts along the coastal areas of those States which are the 
principal offshore oil and gas production areas. Others would have the 
funds used for public acquisition of lands that would be significant 
for a variety of public purposes, including environmental and 
recreational. Others would have them used for coastal protection 
purposes.
  I will talk today about legislation that has been introduced by 
Senator Reid of Nevada and my colleague, Senator Mack, which would have 
a portion of these royalty funds used for the protection of our 
National Park System. There has been an increasing recognition that our 
national parks are in serious trouble. I will offer to be entered into 
the Record, immediately after my remarks, an article from the New York 
Times of July 25, 1999, entitled ``National Parks, Strained By Record 
Crowds, Face A Crisis.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. What is at stake is, will we have adequate resources, 
properly directed, to deal with these national issues, including the 
crisis that is in our national park system.
  The question we must ask ourselves as we vote on this amendment and 
as we vote on the underlying legislation to which it is being offered 
is, Can we live up to the legacy of our forefathers and mothers and 
protect our Federal land trust?
  We are about to begin the fourth century of our Nation's history. We 
were formed at the end of the 18th century, had our maturation in the 
19th century, and now, in the 20th century, have grown to the great 
power and source of influence for values that we consider to be 
fundamental--human rights, democracy--in the 20th century.
  The first two of our centuries that were full centuries, the 19th and 
now the 20th, were highlighted by activism on public lands issues. The 
19th century began with the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas 
Jefferson's most renowned action as President was the purchase of 
Louisiana from France. That single act added almost 530 million acres 
to the United States. That action changed America from an eastern 
coastal nation to a continental power.
  This century, the 20th century, was marked by the addition to the 
public land trust led by President Theodore Roosevelt. While in the 
White House, between 1901 and 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt 
designated 150 national forests, the first 51 Federal bird 
reservations, 5 national parks, the first 18

[[Page 22364]]

national monuments, the first 4 national game preserves, the first 21 
reclamation projects. He also established the National Wildlife Refuge 
System, beginning with the designation of Pelican Island in my State of 
Florida as a national wildlife refuge in 1903.
  Together, these projects equated to Federal protection of almost 230 
million acres, a land area equivalent to that of all the east coast 
States from Maine to Florida and just under half of the Louisiana 
Purchase. That is what the first President in the 19th century, Thomas 
Jefferson, and the first President in the 20th century, Theodore 
Roosevelt, did for America. That was their legacy.
  Clearly, the question we are going to have to answer to our children 
and grandchildren is, Did you live up to the standards of Thomas 
Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt? Roosevelt said: We must ask ourselves 
if we are leaving for future generations an environment that is as good 
as or better than what we found. Can we meet that test?
  As we enter the 21st century, the fourth century of our Nation's 
history, we must again ask ourselves this question. We must be prepared 
to take action to meet the challenge. I argue that the underlying bill 
to which this amendment is attached and to which this amendment would 
further delete resources to meet that challenge of Theodore Roosevelt, 
while it takes some steps towards meeting his challenge, fails to fully 
commit to the protection of our Federal land trust.
  In 1916, Congress created the National Park Service. In doing so, it 
stated that the purposes of the National Park Service were:

       To conserve the scenery and the natural and historic 
     objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the 
     enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as 
     will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 
     generations. ``. . . will leave them unimpaired for the 
     enjoyment of future generations.''
  That is what our predecessor said in 1916 was the purpose of the 
National Park System.
  Today the unimpaired status of our national parks is severely at 
risk. On April 22 of this year, the National Parks and Conservation 
Association identified the 1999 list of the 10 most endangered national 
parks. In his opening remarks, Mr. Tom Kiernan, the President of the 
National Parks and Conservation Association, stated:

       These parks were chosen not because they were the only 
     parks with endangered resources, but because they demonstrate 
     the resource damages that are occurring in all of our parks.

  These parks demonstrate the breadth of the threats faced by our 
National Park System. For example, Chaco Culture National Historical 
Park in Chaco Canyon, NM, contains the remains of 13 major structures 
that represent the highest point of pueblo pre-Columbian civilization. 
In the words of the National Park and Conservation Association:

       It is falling victim to time and neglect. Weather damage, 
     inadequate preservation, neglected maintenance, tourism 
     impacts, and potential resource development on adjacent lands 
     threaten the long-term life of these pre-Columbian 
     structures.

  All of the parks in the Florida Everglades region were included on 
the list of the most endangered. In this area, decades of manipulation 
of the water system has led to loss of significant quantities of 
Florida's water supply to tide every day; it has led to a 90-percent 
decline in the wading bird population; it has led to an invasion of 
non-native plants and animals and to a shrinking wildlife habitat. The 
National Parks and Conservation Association calls Yellowstone National 
Park the ``poster child for the neglect that has marred our national 
parks.''
  We have all heard Senator Thomas and others speak about the 
degradation of the sewage handling and treatment system at Yellowstone 
National Park, a situation that caused spills into Yellowstone Lake and 
nearby meadows, sending more than 225,000 gallons of sewage into 
Yellowstone's waterways, threatening the water quality of this 
resource.
  It is not just these beautiful natural areas that are threatened. One 
of the areas on the 10 most-endangered list, not far from where we 
stand this late afternoon, is Gettysburg National Park, the site of one 
of our greatest historic moments. There, because of inadequate 
maintenance and attention, we are losing some of the most precious 
historical artifacts of our Nation.
  These are illustrative of what is occurring across our National Park 
System. Estimates of the maintenance backlog of the National Park 
Service range from a low of $1.2 billion to $3.54 billion. The National 
Park Service developed a 5-year plan to meet this deferred maintenance 
obligation. It was based on its ability to execute funds and its 
priorities within the National Park System. In this year's 
appropriation process, the House and Senate have modified the national 
parks' request of $194 million. The House, for instance, reduced the 
request by almost $25 million. If we are to ever make a dent in our 
enormous backlog, we must support the national park plan to 
systematically reduce this accumulation of deferred maintenance.
  In addition, if we are to prevent the backlog from growing, we must 
support periodic maintenance on the existing facilities in the park 
system. The Senate reduced both cyclic maintenance and repair and 
rehabilitation in the operation and the maintenance account of the Park 
Service by $3 million and $2.5 million, respectively. While you may say 
these are small dollar amounts in the large budget of the National Park 
System, failure to meet these basic annual maintenance requirements 
will cause our backlog to grow in the long run and will cause the 
severity of the threat to our national parks to increase.
  Neither the operation and maintenance account nor the construction 
account is designed specifically to meet the natural resources needs of 
the park system.
  This year, the National Park Service is seeking to change this with 
the Natural Resource Challenge, announced earlier this year by National 
Park Service Director Bob Stanton.
  This plan will change decisionmaking in the Park Service as manager's 
make resource preservation and conservation an integral consideration 
in all management actions.
  To support this program, the National Park Service requested $16 
million in the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill.
  During this fiscal year, these funds will be focused on the 
completion of natural resource inventories to be used by park managers 
in decisionmaking.
  These funds will support large-scale preservation projects and target 
restoration of threatened areas damaged by human disturbance.
  After considering the National Park Service's Natural Resource 
Challenge appropriations request, the House fully funded the base 
program with $16.235 million.
  The Senate significantly reduced the funds for this program, 
providing a total of only $6 million.
  This shortfall will extend the time period for completion of baseline 
inventories for all 260 park units from 7 to 14 years, delaying the 
time period when the Park Service will be able to identify a ``natural 
resource backlog'' similar to the construction backlog it currently 
uses.
  The actions taken by the Senate and the House do not meet the 
challenge posed by Theodore Roosevelt to leave our environment in a 
better state than we found it.
  I sympathize with the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and I 
respect the actions they have been able to take over the last several 
years to support the needs of the National Park System.
  However, there is a limit to what the Appropriations Subcommittee can 
do given the tools they have.
  They are working to fund 20th century needs for construction and 
natural resource preservation using a 19th century funding mechanism.
  The National Park Service needs a sustained, reliable funding source 
that will allow it to develop intelligent plans based on prioritization 
of need, not availability of funds.
  Last year, Senator Thomas led the way with his landmark legislation 
on the National Park Service, Vision 2020.

[[Page 22365]]

  This legislation adopted, for the first time, both concessions reform 
and science-based decisionmaking on resource needs within the park 
service.
  We took a big step forward last year with the extension of the fee 
demonstration program.
  This allows individual parks to charge entrance fees and use a 
portion of the proceeds for maintenance backlog and natural resource 
projects.
  This action generates about $100 million annually throughout the park 
system. It is time for the next step.
  Earlier this year, I introduced legislation with Senators Reid and 
Mack, S. 819, the National Park Preservation Act, that would provide 
dedicated funding to the National Park Service to restore and conserve 
the natural resources within our park system.
  This legislation seeks to address the long-term efforts required to 
truly restore and protect our natural, cultural, and historic resources 
in our park system.
  The legislation would reallocate funds derived from the use of a 
nonrenewable resource--offshore drilling in the outer continental 
shelf--to a renewable resource--restoration and preservation of 
natural, cultural, and historic resources in our national park system.
  These funds provided by our bill would ensure that each year the 
National Park Service will have the resources it needs to restore and 
prevent damages to the natural, cultural, and historic resources in our 
park system.
  I am working with the members of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee to include a version of this legislation in the final package 
of the ``Outer Continental Shelf Revenue'' legislation under 
consideration by that Committee.
  Last week, I circulated a dear colleague requesting that each of you 
join me in this effort.
  As we move to final passage on the Interior appropriations bill and 
final negotiations on the OCS revenue legislation, I urge you to 
remember this quote from Theodore Roosevelt quote,

       Nothing short of defending this country during wartime 
     compares in importance with the great central task of leaving 
     this land even a better land for our descendants than it is 
     for us.

  We have serious needs in many areas of our national land trust. If we 
are to meet the standard set by Theodore Roosevelt almost a century 
ago, we must not be depleting our capacity to do this by underfunding 
and by reducing the funds that are available to meet these national 
park and other national land demands. We must be looking, creatively, 
for ways to provide sustained, adequate funding sources. That is what 
is at issue in this debate.
  Are we going to succumb to the request of a floor amendment to an 
appropriations bill to reduce the funds available to meet our national 
land trust responsibilities or are we going to both defeat this 
amendment and then step forward in the underlying bill to provide the 
resources necessary to meet the crisis that exists in our national 
parks and in many of our other national land trusts?
  I hope we will hear the call from a century in the past of Theodore 
Roosevelt, that we be prepared to be judged by whether we have left to 
our children and our grandchildren a better America than our parents 
and grandparents gave to us.
  Thank you, Mr. President.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, July 25, 1999]

        National Parks, Strained by Record Crowds, Face a Crisis

                         (By Michael Janofsky)

       Yellowstone National Park, Wyo., July 22--In growing 
     numbers that now exceed 3.1 million a year, visitors travel 
     here to America's oldest national park to marvel at wildlife, 
     towering mountains, pristine rivers and geological 
     curiosities like geysers, hot springs and volcanic mudpots.
       Yet many things tourists may not see on a typical trip 
     through Yellowstone's 2.2 million acres spread across parts 
     of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming could have a greater impact on 
     the park's future than the growl of a grizzly or spew of Old 
     Faithful.
       For all its beauty, Yellowstone is broken. Hordes of summer 
     tourists and the increasing numbers now visiting in the 
     spring, fall and winter are overwhelming the park's ability 
     to accommodate them properly.
       In recent years, the park's popularity has created such 
     enormous demands on water lines, roads and personnel that 
     park management has been forced to spend most of 
     Yellowstone's annual operating budget, about $30 million, on 
     immediate problems rather than investing in long-term 
     solutions that would eliminate the troublesome areas.
       Yellowstone is not the only national park suffering. With 
     the nation's 378 national park areas expected to attract 
     almost 300 million visitors this year, after a record 286 
     million in 1998, many parks are deferring urgently needed 
     capital improvements.
       For instance, damaged sewage pipes at Yellowstone have let 
     so much ground water from spring thaws into the system that 
     crews have had to siphon off millions of gallons of treated 
     water into meadows each of the last four years.
       And with budget restraints forcing personnel cutbacks in 
     every department, even the number of park rangers with law-
     enforcement authority has dropped, contributing to a steady 
     increase in crime throughout Yellowstone.
       ``It's so frustrating,'' Michael V. Finley, Yellowstone's 
     superintendent, said. ``As the park continues to deteriorate, 
     the service level continues to decline. You see how many 
     Americans enjoy this park. They deserve better.''
       Over the last decade the annual budget of the National Park 
     Service, an agency of the Interior Department, has nearly 
     doubled, to $1.9 billion for the fiscal year 1999 from $1.13 
     billion in 1990, an increase that narrowly outpaced 
     inflation.
       But in an assessment made last year, the park service 
     estimated that it would cost $3.54 billion to repair 
     maintenance problems at national parks, monuments and 
     wilderness areas that have been put off--for decades, in some 
     cases--because of a lack of money.
       The cost of needed repairs at Yellowstone was put at $46 
     million, the most of any park area in the system. But the 
     park service report shows that budget limits have forced 
     virtually all national parks to set aside big maintenance 
     projects, delays that many park officials say compromise 
     visitor enjoyment and occasionally threaten their health and 
     safety.
       Senator Craig Thomas, a Wyoming Republican who is chairman 
     of the Subcommittee on National Parks, and Bob Stanton, 
     director of the park service, negotiated a deal this week to 
     spend $12 million over the next three years for Yellowstone 
     repairs.
       Other parks may have to wait longer. The Grand Canyon 
     National Park depends on a water treatment system that has 
     not been upgraded in 30 years, a $20 million problem, park 
     officials say. Parts of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 
     National Historical Park along the Potomac River are 
     crumbling, another $10 million expense. The Everglades 
     National Park in South Florida needs a $15 million water 
     treatment plant.
       Even with a heightened awareness of need among Federal 
     lawmakers and Clinton Administration officials, money to 
     repair those problems may be hard to find at a time when 
     Congress is wrestling over the true size of a projected 
     budget surplus and how much of it will pay for tax cuts. If 
     billions were to become available for new spending, the park 
     service would still have to slug it out with every other 
     Federal agency, and few predict that parks would emerge a big 
     winner.
       It is a disturbing prospect to conservationists, parks 
     officials and those lawmakers who support increased spending 
     to help the parks address their backlog of maintenance 
     problems.
       ``It's kind of like a decayed tooth,'' said Dave Simon, the 
     Southwest regional director for the National Parks and 
     Conservation Association, a citizens' group that is working 
     with Yellowstone to solve some of the long-term needs. ``If 
     you don't take care of it, one day you'll wake up with a 
     mouthful of cavities.''
       The parks' supporters like Representative Ralph S. Regula, 
     an Ohio Republican who is chairman of Appropriations 
     Subcommittee on the Interior, concede that budgetary 
     increases as well as revenue from new programs that allow 
     parks to keep a greater share of entrance fees and concession 
     sales have been offset by inflation, rising costs and daily 
     operational demands that now accommodate 8.9 percent more 
     people than those who visited national parks a decade ago.
       With few dollars available for maintenance programs, the 
     parks suffered ``bengin neglect,'' Mr. Regula said, adding: 
     ``It's not very sexy to fix a sewer system or maintain a 
     trail. You don't get headlines for that. It would be nice to 
     get them more money, but we're constrained.''
       Denis P. Galvin, the deputy director of the National Park 
     Service, noted that only twice this century, in the 1930's 
     and in 1966, has the Federal Government authorized money for 
     systemwide capital improvements, and he said he was not 
     expecting another windfall soon.
       ``Generally,'' Mr. Galvin said, ``domestic programs come at 
     the back of the line when they're formulating the Federal 
     budget, and I just don't think parks are a priority.''
       Perhaps no park in America reflects the array of hidden 
     problems more than Yellowstone, which opened in 1872, years 
     before Idaho, Montana and Wyoming became states.

[[Page 22366]]

       Park officials here say that the longer problems go 
     unattended, the more expensive and threatening they become.
       The budget restraints have meant reducing the number of 
     rangers who carry guns and have the authority to make 
     arrests.
       Rick Obernesser, Yellowstone's chief ranger, said the 
     roster had dwindled to 112 from 144 over the last 10 years, 
     which often means leaving the park without any of these 
     rangers from 2 A.M. to 6 A.M.
       Next year, Mr. Obernesser said, the park will have only 93 
     of these rangers, about 1 for every 23,000 acres, compared 
     with 1 for every 15,000 acres when his staff was at peak 
     strength.
       That has not only led to slower response times to 
     emergencies, like auto accidents and heart attacks, he said, 
     but also to an increase in crime. Since the peak staffing 
     year of 1989, he said, the park has experienced significant 
     increases in the killing of wildlife, thefts, weapons charges 
     against visitors and violations by snowmobile drivers.

                           *   *   *   *   *


  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes, following which Senator Boxer 
from California would be recognized for up to 10 minutes, after which 
Senator Murkowski would be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes, and 
then I will close for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not, I thank my colleague. It has been a long day, and we are about to 
end this. Will that take us to 6:10 or 6:15?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, it will.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to take 5 minutes at this time 
to answer what questions were asked by Senator Graham from Florida. 
First of all, he asked: Why are we calling this a tax? This is really a 
lease payment, a condition for a lease.
  What I am concerned about is that he is willing to say we will change 
the terms of the lease during the term. If that is not an increase in a 
tax, I don't know what it is. It is a tax increase during the term of a 
lease. It changes the conditions of the lease, and it will raise the 
costs to oil companies. Who is going to pay the increased costs? Who 
always pays the increased costs on business? I am always amazed that 
people talk about taxing business and making business pay their fair 
share. When the business is going to sell the product, the business has 
to have a certain margin in order to stay in business and keep the jobs 
that it is creating. Of course, they have to raise the price of the 
product. That is exactly what is going to happen.
  This is the chart about which the Senator from Florida spoke. There 
is no question that the taxes at the top of the chart are 56 cents for 
a gallon of gasoline, and the oil is 64 cents. If you add more to the 
taxes, you are going to add more to the price of gasoline.
  This is a tax increase on the people who are going to pay for 
gasoline at the pump.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I have 5 minutes under a unanimous consent. I didn't 
interrupt the Senator from Florida, and I would like to finish my 5 
minutes, if I can.
  The Senator from Florida talked about the ``rabbit warren'' of 
regulation.
  I want to put that chart up because it is a valid question.
  Is this the same as, or any worse than, the regulations that we have 
today? In fact, this whole segment of this chart isn't there today 
because today, if oil is sold at the wellhead, the Federal Government 
recognizes that is the price. Under the new regulation, we have this 
theory of procedures that would be required for a person who is selling 
at the wellhead to prove that was really the price because the Mineral 
Management Service reserves the right to second-guess the price that is 
actually paid.
  I say that there is a good case to be made that this is actually more 
complicated than it is today. I hope that we will not allow that to go 
forward.
  The third area that was mentioned by the Senator from Florida is, why 
is this coming up in this bill? He said: Why don't we have hearings? 
Why is this coming up in this bill?
  It is coming up in this bill because the Federal regulators are 
spending taxpayer dollars to perpetrate a tax increase on the hard-
working people of this country who buy gasoline at the pump, and they 
are doing it with the appropriations that we are passing tonight.
  Of course, if we are going to have any say, if we are going to have 
the ability to exercise the responsibility of Congress to set tax 
policy in our country and determine that we are going to raise gasoline 
prices at the pump, we must act on the bill that gives them the money, 
and direct them as a Congress to not raise taxes on the people of 
America who buy gasoline for their cars every day.
  Last but not least, the Senator from Florida raised the question: Are 
we living up to the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt? I think it is 
important that we look at the money that we are spending to preserve 
our wildlife and preserve our natural habitat. I think that is a valid 
question. My answer is yes. That is not an issue in anything we are 
talking about tonight because if these companies don't agree to take 
care of the environment and clean up anything that might be built, then 
they will not get the lease.
  That is part of the least arrangement. So protecting the environment 
is not an issue, and, of course, we want to protect the legacy that we 
have been given by our forefathers and mothers of this wonderful 
country.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Hutchison, 
for working so well with me so we can, in an orderly way, get this 
vote.
  I want to say to my friend from Florida before he leaves the floor 
that I know he has more to say on this, and that he has raised issues 
that are so important to this debate.
  First, he raised the issue of process. He raises the point that this 
amendment doesn't belong here. It certainly does not.
  As a matter of fact, originally it was stripped from the bill, and it 
came back in a rather clever way.
  I give my colleague credit for passing the test. But it is making 
appropriations on a bill. My colleague makes that point.
  Second, he makes a very important point on the substance. This issue 
about whether a royalty is a tax, he knows. He is on the Finance 
Committee. If this was a tax, he would be dealing with it.
  He himself raises a crucial issue that was given short shrift by my 
friend from Texas, and that is, why are we here? Who do we fight for? 
And shouldn't it be for our children, our grandchildren, and their 
children? I think he says it in very sweeping terms.
  He also points out very clearly the specific problems that we face in 
the shortfall of our national parks, and the fact that these funds, 
when collected from the oil companies, go into the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  I thank the Senator.
  I also want to thank Senators Durbin, Feingold, Reid, Wellstone, 
Dorgan, Levin, Harkin, Kennedy, Daschle, Byrd, Akaka, Cleland, and 
Conrad for yielding me time. This has meant a lot to me personally.
  But it also is telling that Senators would take their time and come 
to the floor to speak from their heart. And they did.
  I believe at the end of the day we have shown that the facts are on 
our side. I believe we have the arguments on our side that have been 
made by the consumer groups. I think the people who care about the 
environment are on our side. The legal precedents and settlements are 
on our side. Most of the States that are affected by this are on our 
side. I have read them into the Record. So if it is about States 
rights, we have the Record. The former oil executives under penalty of 
perjury and putting themselves on the line testified

[[Page 22367]]

that we are right, and that there has been not one scheme but seven 
schemes to defraud the people of their money from royalties.
  I think we have proven that we have the arguments on our side.
  I am happy that we had this debate. To me, this is what the Senate 
should be about, and one of our colleagues from Oklahoma denigrated 
this debate. He said it didn't fit the Senate. He said that, in a way. 
I think this debate is important for the Senate.
  But I want to wind up by picking up on a statement made by the 
Senator from Montana. He is a good debater. And he ``gets with you.'' I 
like to hear him. What he said in the debate was basically, to me and 
the people on my side, ``Get a life.'' He said, ``Get a life.''
  I want to talk about my life for a minute. I want to talk about what 
my professional life is about. I want to assure the Senator from 
Montana that I have a life. As a Senator, what I try to do with my life 
is to find purpose in it by fighting for the people of my State and the 
people of this country by taking their side against the special 
interests when I believe the special interests are wrong.
  If I believe the special interests are right, I will fight for them, 
if they are on the side of the people. I said earlier, and I will 
repeat now, there are two sides to this debate on this amendment. There 
are. The oil company has one side and the people have the other. I 
stand on the side of the people.
  So I have a life. I try to make my life about justice.
  My colleagues could have a different view of justice. I respect them 
tremendously if they do. But, to me, this is a matter of justice.
  Why do I say it? I say it because we know something bad is going on 
when two former oil executives filed a lawsuit and described very 
clearly the seven schemes by the oil companies to defraud the 
taxpayers.
  Quoting from them, they say:

       There is a nationwide conspiracy by some of the world's 
     largest oil companies to short change the United States of 
     America of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.

  That is not the Senator from California. It is not the Senator from 
Massachusetts. It is not the Senator from Florida. It is two former oil 
executives who spell out the seven schemes of the oil companies.
  We know that there have been settlements all over the country--$5 
billion worth of settlements by seven States.
  Why would these oil companies be settling all over this country? In 
Alaska, for $3.7 billion; in California, for $345 million. It goes on--
in Texas, for $30 million. The State of Texas brought suit. The State 
of Texas sued the oil companies. And guess what happened. The oil 
company didn't want to go to court. They settled for $30 million; New 
Mexico, for $6 million. It goes on.
  Now these oil companies are settling because they know they don't 
have a leg to stand on in court because they signed an agreement to pay 
royalties at fair market value. The Mineral Management Service at the 
Department of the Interior caught them. They want to fix the problem.
  This is the fourth time this Senate is interfering in that. I love 
this Senate too much to see that happen. It is the oil companies versus 
the people. I want to be on the side of the people.
  I think this has been a very good debate. We have covered all the 
issues very well. I want to thank the media for getting involved. We 
have seen some very strong stories in the last few days on this. I 
think the original editorial written by USA Today is still the best. 
USA Today said: ``Time to clean up Big Oil's slick deal with 
Congress.'' Those are tough words. Those are ugly words. I am sad to 
say, I agree. We can clean it up today. We can vote against this 
amendment and clean it up and have a good editorial. Wouldn't Members 
love to see an editorial tomorrow, ``Congress cleans up its act, tells 
the oil companies to pay their fair share of royalties.'' I would be 
excited to see that headline. I don't think we will see it.
  This issue will not go away as long as my colleagues and I are here. 
I think it is clear. The editorial says the taxpayers have been getting 
the unfair end of this deal for far too long. Congress should protect 
the public interest.
  That is what this is about. We have heard every argument in the book: 
The Interior Department is terrible, Mineral Management is terrible, 
people in the Interior Department are terrible. Everybody is terrible. 
Everybody is terrible.
  The people who are causing the trouble, the 5 percent of the oil 
companies that are not paying their fair share, are robbing this 
Federal Treasury of almost $6 million per month. That is a lot of 
money. Ask any constituent what they would do with $6 million a month, 
and they would have a pretty good list.
  Sad to say, this money that is not going into the Treasury because of 
this amendment could have gone to the classrooms of the States, could 
have gone into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and been spent on 
the kinds of things Senator Graham, Senator Durbin, and many of our 
colleagues have pointed out need attention.
  We are coming to the end of this debate. I urge my colleagues, in the 
name of fairness and justice, to vote against the Hutchison amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, and the Senator 
from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, on oil royalties. It is essential 
that we adopt this amendment to prohibit yet another attempt by this 
administration to ``tax'' the American people without their effective 
representation--without a bill being introduced in Congress, without 
its passage by both Houses of Congress, and without the President's 
signature.
  There has been a lot of talk about whether or not the current 
procedures for valuing crude oil for Federal royalty purposes are 
working properly. I have been fascinated by this debate. The issue we 
are discussing is really more basic than whether the current procedures 
need to be modified. The question is at heart a constitutional one--if 
we are to change the way the Federal Government has forced oil 
companies to calculate Federal royalties for the last 79 years, should 
this change come from Congress, or should it come in the form of a tax 
scheme dreamed up by a Federal bureaucracy?
  Not only do these rules amount to a usurpation of the legislative 
function by the administration, but in substance they would allow 
tremendous complexity for people in the oil industry. These rules would 
require producers to report and pay royalties under three different 
sets of rules. Now I've been a small businessman, and I've been on the 
receiving end of Federal and State regulations for a good part of my 
life. I can tell you, we better have a very good explanation if we are 
going to expect small oil companies in Wyoming to dill out a bunch more 
paper work just to comply with their lawful obligation to pay Federal 
royalties on the oil they drill on Federal lands.
  If we are going to change the point at which we determine the value 
of the crude oil--from the wellhead to some point downstream or by 
reference to a national exchange, we owe it to the small producers in 
Wyoming, and throughout the country, to give their suggestions to 
Congress on any alternative plan. We need to hear how much more time 
and effort this is going to be for folks who are still hurting from 
last year's devastatingly low crude oil prices.
  I think we owe that opportunity to our Nation's oil producers, so I 
am proud to join the Senator from Texas and the Senator from New 
Mexico, and others in standing up for the right of Congress to pass 
laws that affect the tax burden on our domestic oil industry.
  I ask unanimous consent a letter from Wyoming Governor Geringer to 
Senator Hutchison be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page 22368]]


                                                 State of Wyoming,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                  Cheyenne, WY, September 8, 1999.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: I ask for your strong support of 
     the amendment to the Department of Interior Appropriation 
     Bill which would extend the moratorium on Minerals Management 
     Service (MMS) rule making. Wyoming, as the largest 
     stakeholder of federal oil royalty receipts (35%) supports a 
     fair and workable oil valuation rule. However, the current 
     proposed rules contain more uncertainty and will diminish 
     incentives for industry to lease, explore and produce on the 
     immense amount of federal acreage in Wyoming. Such 
     uncertainty will lead to additional administrative, audit and 
     legal activities, which will lead to higher costs for Wyoming 
     producers, causing their products to be less competitive. 
     Higher costs to the MMS are then passed on to Wyoming and 
     other states in the sharing of net receipts. Last year 
     Wyoming's net receipt share along of MMS activity was $7 
     million.
       Wyoming is currently involved in a pilot project with the 
     MMS to take its crude oil royalties in-kind (RIK) rather than 
     in cash. This RIK pilot program has been designed to allow 
     the state and the MMS to reduce administrative costs, 
     eliminate legal disputes and test the various methods of 
     achieving fair market value for our oil. Therefore, the 
     moratorium extension for two more years would allow such 
     valuable experience to be tested. Allowing a sufficient 
     amount of time to finish the pilot will assist in the 
     development of new rules. Let us keep working cooperatively 
     with MMS, free of this rule making distraction.
       While we continue to object to the implementation of 
     Interior's rules, Wyoming has participated in every phase of 
     the rulemaking process. We also have observed the attempts to 
     craft distracting legislation, which would attempt to address 
     far too many unrelated aspects of the relationship between 
     MMS, stakeholder states and industry. We do not support such 
     efforts. Following our experience with RIK, we believe that a 
     simple approach establishing a voluntary RIK program for the 
     states, embodied in no more than two pages of legislation, 
     will be all that is necessary. Let us go to work on a simple, 
     but effective bill.
       I urge you to support the rulemaking moratorium and 
     encourage the MMS and royalty receiving states to engage in a 
     genuine partnership role which will insure a fair, workable 
     and beneficial plan to collect royalties. Adoption of the 
     proposed rules would obstruct any opportunity to improve our 
     royalty collection process.
       Thank you for your support and understanding!
           Best regards,
                                                     Jim Geringer,
                                                         Governor.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Alaska is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I have listened to 
the debate with a little frustration, as I am sure my colleagues have, 
regarding the emotional arguments prevailing on an issue that fails to 
give disclosure to the public on what this issue is all about.
  The Hutchison moratorium amendment keeps the MMS from spending money 
for 1 year to implement a new rule that amounts to another tax, a 
value-added tax, on oil produced in the United States on Federal 
leases. What they don't say in the debate is who pays this additional 
tax. It is the American consumer, the taxpayer, the public.
  Bureaucrats don't have the right to unilaterally establish a tax. 
That is just what this proposal does. That is a right that is reserved 
in the Constitution, by the Constitution to this Congress. Existing law 
says royalties should be collected at the lease, not after value has 
been added downstream as the rule proposed by Department of Interior 
would do. This MMS rule, for the first time in history, embraces a 
value-added tax concept to oil valuation.
  There is little mention about the energy security interests of this 
country. We are now dependent upon imported oil. Imported oil is the 
No. 1 contributor to our trade deficit. The domestic oil industry is in 
tough shape. In 1973, during the oil embargo, we imported 36 percent of 
our oil. Today, we import 56 percent. The Department of Energy says 
that figure will go up to the 63- to 64-percent area by the years 2005, 
2006, and 2007, and over 55,000 American jobs have been lost in the 
last 2 years in the oil industry, five times the number in the steel 
industry. The MMS rule drives U.S. jobs overseas, increases our trade 
deficit, and makes America more dependent on one area of the world that 
is very volatile, the Mideast.
  This moratorium by the Senator from Texas has been in place for 2 
years. The press has reported two Government employees have been paid 
$350,000 each from a group associated with the trial lawyers as an 
award for pushing for the new rule which benefits--benefits whom? It 
doesn't benefit the taxpayer or the consumer; it benefits the lawyers. 
The Department of the Interior inspector general and Justice Department 
are investigating. Something is rotten around here. It is not in 
Denmark. It has something to do with the process.
  This has the effect of turning our Government regulation over to the 
highest bidder. No rule tainted by payoffs to the rulemakers should be 
tolerated. It is interesting to note, as the Senator from Texas has, 
they say they want to simplify a process. The chart today reminds me of 
the chart Senator Specter presented to this body describing the 
simplified health care that had been proposed by the First Lady and the 
administration. Again, look at this chart. If that is a simplified 
chart on the workable manner in which MMS proposes a value-added method 
for determining the appropriate royalty for oil, you and I both know 
that won't hold water.
  This is a cancer within Government. We talk about whistleblowers and 
those who are supporting the proposed MMS gasoline and heating oil tax 
which Senator Hutchison's amendment postpones for 1 year. When they 
think about a whistleblower, most people think of something someone 
sees is wrong, who blows a whistle to draw attention. The Federal 
Government has laws on the books to protect whistleblowers who come 
forward to report fraud and abuse.
  Let's look at this case. This case is a little different. Two Federal 
employees, one working for the Department of the Interior and the other 
working for the Department of Energy--the two Departments of 
jurisdiction; these are supposed to be objective people--worked behind 
the scenes and pushed for the MMS rule change. They were paid $350,000 
each on September 13, 1999 as rewards for their work. There is a copy 
of the check.
  The point of this is, they were paid by a self-described public 
interest group which has about 200 members. This group, the Project On 
Government Oversight, or POGO, has rather curious ties to law firms 
which have made millions of dollars from suing oil companies over oil 
royalties. Make no mistake about who pays: The public.
  As an example, POGO's board of directors has included lawyers who 
have worked directly on these cases for years. The City of Long Beach, 
CA, lost the most recent case. An attorney for the city said they spent 
about $100 million on the case. That is $100 million that could have 
been spent on education and was spent on lawyers instead.
  The Department of the Interior is investigating, but it is illegal 
for Federal employees to be paid for pursuing changes to Federal 
regulations by those who benefit from such changes. Our Secretary of 
the Interior, what has he done? He has done nothing. The Interior 
Department had nothing to do with it.
  The Hutchison amendment should be adopted to give time to work on a 
fair and simple regulation to States, Federal lessees, and taxpayers.
  That chart is not a simplification. I commend my colleague for her 
effort to expose the truth behind the fiction we have heard so much 
about today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska, the 
chairman of the Energy Committee, who understands this issue and 
understands the importance of a stable oil and gas supply in our 
country.
  It has been said that the States that have the most at stake are 
against my amendment. I submit for the Record a letter from the 
Governor of Wyoming, who says:

       Wyoming, as the largest stakeholder of federal oil royalty 
     receipts (35 percent), supports a fair and workable oil 
     valuation rule.

[[Page 22369]]

     However the current proposed rules contain more uncertainty 
     and will diminish incentives for industry to lease, explore 
     and produce on the immense amount of federal acreage in 
     Wyoming.

  The Governor of the State of North Dakota wrote:

       As a major recipient of income from Federal royalties, the 
     State of North Dakota supports reasonable rules for the 
     valuation of federal oil royalties. Unfortunately, the 
     current version of the rules proposed by MMS does not fit 
     that description.

  The Governor of Montana:

       The complexity and uncertainty inherent in the proposed MMS 
     rules may be a disincentive for industry, especially 
     Montana's independent producers, to lease and produce oil and 
     gas from federal lands. Such a disincentive will negatively 
     impact the production of oil and gas within Montana, 
     resulting in less royalty revenue for the state.

  I think that is a very important point because we have been talking 
about losing $60 million from the coffers of the Federal Government. 
But in fact, if oil companies cannot drill because they cannot make a 
profit because their costs will be higher than the price they can 
charge, then they are not going to drill and there will be no money in 
the Federal coffers--not $66 million; there will be a diminishing of 
the amount of money that will come into the Federal Government.
  I will submit these letters along with letters from the Secretary of 
Energy of Oklahoma, Commissioner David Dewhurst from the Texas General 
Land Office, and the California Independent Petroleum Association. They 
write:

       Please, Senator Hutchison, pass your amendment.

  We have a list of the independents who say the MMS rule will be 
harmful to them. These are the small producers, those with 5 or 10 or 
15 employees, the families of which depend on this income. This is an 
independent producer issue.
  It comes down to this. Through the last 10 years, the price of 
gasoline at the pump has increased from $1.21 to $1.29 per gallon. But 
let's look at where that increase has come from. The increase in taxes 
has gone from 26 cents a gallon to 40 cents a gallon. The price of the 
crude oil has actually gone down from 94 cents to 88 cents.
  So the price has gone up. Why? Because taxes have increased. If we do 
not pass the Hutchison amendment, taxes are going to increase again, 
and who is going to pay? It is going to be the hard-working American 
who fills up his or her gas tank and has to pay a higher price because 
there are higher taxes put on them in the name of increased royalty 
rates.
  If we are going to have a tax increase for whatever purpose --for 
more education spending, for the environment, for any purpose 
whatsoever--let's call it a tax increase and let's vote on it up or 
down. Let Congress take a stand because Congress is the one that will 
be accountable to the people. Let's not let a Federal agency raise the 
price of gasoline at the pump by raising taxes on oil in the name of 
new oil royalty rates. Congress will not stand by and let an unelected 
Federal agency raise taxes on hard-working people in this country and 
the price of gasoline at the pump.
  The Senator from California said she would like to see editorials 
tomorrow in the paper saying: Congress cleans up its act. I would like 
to see editorials. I would like to see editorials that say: Congress 
rejected the rhetoric; it did not listen to arguments about lawsuits on 
present regulations as if it would affect the future regulations; 
Congress stood up for its right to make tax policy in this country and 
not to let tax increases affect the hard-working people of this 
country. That is the editorial I hope to see tomorrow.
  I ask unanimous consent the letters I referred to and others be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 State of Wyoming,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                                September 8, 1999.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: I ask for your strong support of 
     the amendment to the Department of Interior Appropriation 
     Bill which would extend the moratorium on Minerals Management 
     Service (MMS) rule making. Wyoming, as the largest 
     stakeholder of federal oil royalty receipts (35%), supports a 
     fair and workable oil valuation rule. However, the current 
     proposed rules contain more uncertainty and will diminish 
     incentives for industry to lease, explore and produce on the 
     immense amount of federal acreage in Wyoming. Such 
     uncertainty will lead to additional administrative, audit and 
     legal activities, which will lead to higher costs for Wyoming 
     producers, causing their products to be less competitive. 
     Higher costs to the MMS are then passed on to Wyoming and 
     other states in the sharing of net receipts. Last year 
     Wyoming's net receipt share alone of MMS activity was $7 
     million.
       Wyoming is currently involved in a pilot project with the 
     MMS to take its crude oil royalties in-kind (RIK) rather than 
     in cash. This RIK pilot program has been designed to allow 
     the state and the MMS to reduce administrative costs, 
     eliminate legal disputes and test the various methods of 
     achieving fair market value for our oil. Therefore, the 
     moratorium extension for two more years would allow such 
     valuable experience to be tested. Allowing a sufficient 
     amount of time to finish the pilot will assist in the 
     development of new rules. Let us keep working cooperatively 
     with MMS, free of this rule making distraction.
       While we continue to object to the implementation of 
     Interior's rules, Wyoming has participated in every phase of 
     the rulemaking process. We also have observed the attempts to 
     craft distracting legislation, which would attempt to address 
     far too many unrelated aspects of the relationship between 
     MMS, stakeholder states and industry. We do not support such 
     efforts. Following our experience with RIK, we believe that a 
     simple approach establishing a voluntary RIK program for the 
     states, embodied in no more than two pages of legislation, 
     will be all that is necessary. Let us go to work on a simple, 
     but effective bill.
       I urge you to support the rulemaking moratorium and 
     encourage the MMS and royalty receiving states to engage in a 
     genuine partnership role which will insure a fair, workable 
     and beneficial plan to collect royalties. Adoption of the 
     proposed rules would obstruct any opportunity to improve our 
     royalty collection process.
       Thank you for your support and understanding!
           Best regards,
                                                     Jim Geringer,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                            State of North Dakota,


                                        Office of the Governor

                                   Bismark, ND, September 7, 1999.
     Hon. Earl Pomeroy,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Pomeroy: As a major recipient of income 
     from federal royalties, the State of North Dakota supports 
     reasonable rules for the valuation of federal oil royalties. 
     Unfortunately, the current version of the rules proposed by 
     the Minerals Management Service (MMS) does not fit that 
     description.
       The rules currently proposed are vague, complex, and do not 
     solve the problem of properly determining oil value. If 
     adopted as currently proposed, the rules will increase MMS 
     administrative costs and oil valuation uncertainty.
       Uncertainty in oil valuation works as a disincentive to 
     industry in its future efforts to produce oil and gas from 
     federal lands, resulting in a loss of income for North 
     Dakota.
       Increased MMS administrative costs also harm North Dakota 
     through increased 
     billings under the federal government's net receipts sharing 
     laws.
       Because of these considerations, I urge you to support an 
     extension of the congressionally mandated moratorium 
     preventing MMS from issuing final rules in the current form.
           Sincerely,
                                                Edward T. Schafer,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                                 State of Montana,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                    Helna, MT, September 13, 1999.
     Hon. Conrad Burns,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Burns: I am writing to express this 
     administration's support for the Hutchison amendment to the 
     Department of Interior Appropriation Bill which would extend 
     the moratorium on Minerals Management Services (MMS) rule 
     making.
       The complexity and uncertainty inherent in the proposed MMS 
     rules may be a disincentive for industry, especially 
     Montana's independent producers, to lease and produce oil and 
     gas from federal lands. Such a disincentive will negatively 
     impact the production of oil and gas within Montana, 
     resulting in less royalty for the state.
       The moratorium will provide additional time for all 
     interested parties to develop a fair, workable and efficient 
     plan to collect federal royalties. During this additional one 
     year moratorium, all parties must work in earnest toward the 
     successful conclusion of this issue.
       Thank you for your support and understanding.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mick Robinson,
                                                Director of Policy

[[Page 22370]]

     
                                  ____
                                                State of Oklahoma,


                            Office of the Secretary of Energy,

                            Oklahoma City, OK, September 11, 1999.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: I ask for your strong support of the 
     amendment to the Department of Interior appropriation bill 
     which would extend the moratorium on Minerals Management 
     Service oil valuation rulemaking. Oklahoma and the other oil-
     producing states have worked hard to help create a simpler, 
     fairer method of valuing oil. The proposed MMS rules are 
     complicated and burdensome, particularly for independent 
     producers. I believe they will act as a disincentive to lease 
     and produce oil and gas from federal lands. Additionally, I 
     believe their complexity and uncertainty will mean increased 
     costs for the federal government and states.
       Therefore, I strongly support extension of the current 
     moratorium until a valuation methodology can be derived which 
     satisfies the objective of capturing market value at the 
     lease in a simple, certain and efficient manner.
           Sincerely,
                                               Carl Michael Smith,
     Secretary of Energy.
                                  ____


                Statement of Commissioner David Dewhurst

                       Texas General Land Office

       As an independent oilman who explored on and produced oil 
     and gas from MMS leases, I know firsthand the business risks 
     that are required in offshore exploration and production. As 
     the elected land commissioner of Texas who serves as a 
     trustee of state lands and waters that benefit the school 
     kids of Texas, I am committed to ensuring that we maximize 
     revenue for public and higher education. Therefore, I support 
     the position advocated by Senator Hutchison. The proposed MMS 
     rules are complicated and burdensome and would be a 
     disincentive for industry, particularly independent 
     producers, to lease and produce oil and gas from federal 
     lands. I am concerned that the net effect of these rules will 
     be less oil and gas is produced, and consequently less 
     royalty revenue for our school kids.
                                  ____


Statement from Texas Railroad Commission Chairman Tony Garza regarding 
     Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's (R-Texas) effort to extend the 
  moratorium on the Mineral Management Service (MMS) proposed royalty 
                            valuation rule.

       ``With oil imports continuing a dramatic rise, Senator 
     Hutchison's effort will help guard against the serious 
     security and economic risks associated with an American 
     marketplace dominated by foreign crude. It's more than help 
     for a beleaguered domestic energy industry. It's common-sense 
     policy that strengthens our commitment to domestic production 
     and jobs while encouraging the development of a sound U.S. 
     energy policy.''
                                  ____

                                            California Independent


                                        Petroleum Association,

                               Sacramento, CA, September 13, 1999.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: The California Independent 
     Petroleum Association (CIPA) represents 450 independent oil 
     and gas producers, royalty owners and service companies 
     operating in California. CIPA wants to set the record 
     straight. The MMS oil royalty rulemaking affects all 
     California producers on federal land. It is false to claim 
     that this rulemaking only affects the top 5% of all 
     producers.
       How are California independents affected? The proposed 
     rulemaking allows the government to second guess a wellhead 
     sale. If rejected, a California producer is subjected to an 
     ANS index that adjusts to the wellhead set by the government. 
     Using a government formula instead of actual proceeds results 
     in a new tax being imposed on all producers of federal oil.
       It doesn't end, if a California producer chooses to move 
     its oil downstream of the well, the rulemaking will reject 
     many of the costs associated with these activities. Again, to 
     reject costs results in a new tax being levied on the 
     producer.
       Senator Hutchison, California producers support your 
     amendment to extend the oil royalty rulemaking an additional 
     year. We offer our support not on behalf of the largest 
     producers in the world, but instead on behalf of independent 
     producers in the state of California. Your amendment will 
     provide the needed impetus to craft a rule that truly does 
     affect the small producer and creates a new rulemaking 
     framework that is fair and equitable for all parties.
       Again, thank you for offering this amendment. We cannot 
     allow the government to unilaterally assess an additional tax 
     on independent producers. After record low oil prices, 
     California producers are barely beginning to travel down a 
     lengthy road to recovery. To assess a new tax at this time 
     could have a devastating effect on federal production and the 
     amount of royalties paid to the government.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Daniel P. Kramer,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                           National Black Chamber of Commerce,

                                                   August 5, 1999.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     Senator, State of Texas,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: The National Black Chamber of 
     Commerce has been quite proud of the leadership you have 
     shown on the issue of oil royalties and the attempt of the 
     Minerals Management Service's, Department of Interior, to 
     levy eventual increases on the oil industry.
       The efforts of MMS are, indeed, ludicrous. Collectively, 
     the national economy is booming and the chief subject matter 
     is ``tax reduction'' not ``royalty increase'', which is a 
     cute term for tax increase. What adds ``salt to the wound'' 
     is the fact that despite a booming economy from a national 
     perspective, the oil industry has not been so fortunate and 
     is on hard times. We need to come up with vehicles that will 
     stimulate this vital part of our economic bloodstream, not 
     further the damages.
       We support your plan to re-offer a one-year extension of 
     the moratorium on the new rule proposed by MMS. We will also 
     support any efforts you may have to prohibit the new rule. 
     Good luck in giving it ``the good fight''.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Harry C. Alford,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                             Frontiers of Freedom,
                                     Arlington, VA, July 30, 1999.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Re: Supporting the Hutchison-Domenici Amendment (a 
     Moratorium on the Proposed Oil Valuation Rule which Prevents 
     Unauthorized Taxation and Lawmaking by the Department of 
     Interior).
       Dear Senator Hutchison: We are writing to express our 
     support for the Hutchison-Domenici amendment to the FY 2000 
     Appropriations bill. The Hutchison-Domenici amendment 
     prevents the Department of the Interior from rewriting laws 
     and assessing additional taxes without the consent of the 
     Congress. This role properly rests with the legislative 
     branch, not with unelected bureaucrats.
       In a misleading letter dated July 21, 1999, detractors of 
     the Hutchison-Domenici amendment allege it will cost 
     ``taxpayers, schoolchildren, Native Americans, and the 
     environment.'' That is not so! It's time to set the record 
     straight--this amendment does not alter the status quo at 
     all. This amendment says to Secretary Babbitt: Spend no money 
     to finalize a crude oil valuation rule until the Congress 
     agrees with your proposed methodology for defining value for 
     royalty purposes.
       We contend that a mineral lease is a contract, whether 
     issued by the United States or any other lessor, and as such, 
     its terms may not be unilaterally changed just because a 
     government bureaucracy thinks more money can be squeezed from 
     the lessee by redefining the manner in which the value of 
     production is established. What royalty amount is due is 
     determined by the contracts and statues, and nothing else. 
     For seventy-nine years the federal government has lived 
     according to a law that establishes that the government 
     receives value at the well--not downstream after incremental 
     value is added. The bureaucrats at the Interior Department 
     are in effect imposing a value added tax through the 
     backdoor.
       This is nothing short of a backdoor tax via an unlawful, 
     inequitable rulemaking which Secretary Babbitt says is 
     necessary because of ``changing oil market.'' But, we think 
     his real result, and that of his supporters such as Senator 
     Boxer, is to cripple the domestic petroleum industry, and 
     drive them to foreign shores and advance their goal of 
     reducing fossil fuel consumption. This is why they falsely 
     claim that green eyeshade accounts somehow are impacting the 
     environment.
       The outcry on behalf of schoolchildren is particularly 
     hypocritical. Senator Boxer and Rep. George Miller are 
     responsible for a mineral leasing law amendment in the 1993 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act which reduces education 
     revenues to the State of California by over $1 million per 
     year--far more than the Department's oil valuation rule would 
     add to California's treasury (approximately $150,000 per year 
     as scored by the Congressional Budget Office). So really, who 
     is harming schoolchildren's education budgets? The oil 
     industry provides millions and millions of royalty dollars 
     each year for the U.S. Treasury and for States' coffers.
       The ``cheating'' which Sen. Boxer and others allege is 
     unproven. Reference to settlements by oil companies as proof 
     of fraud is improper. When President Clinton settled the 
     Paula Jones lawsuit his attorney admonished Senator Boxer and 
     her fellow jurors to take no legal inference from that 
     payment. We agree. As such, oil company settlements cannot be 
     given precedential value. Who can fight the government 
     forever when the royalty dollars they have paid in are used 
     to fund enormous litigation budgets?
       Lastly, two employees of the federal government who were 
     integral to the ``futures market pricing'' philosophy 
     espoused in the Department's rulemaking have been caught

[[Page 22371]]

     accepting $350,000 checks from a private group with a stake 
     in the outcome of False Claims Act litigation against oil 
     companies. Ironically, the money to pay-off these two 
     individuals for their ``heroic'' actions while working as 
     federal employees came from a settlement by one oil company. 
     The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) last fall received 
     well over one million dollars as a plaintiff in the suit. 
     Shortly thereafter POGO quietly ``thanked'' these public 
     servants for making this bounty possible. The Public 
     Integrity Section of the Department of Justice has an ongoing 
     investigation. We find it unconscionable the Administration 
     seeks to put the valuation rule into place without getting to 
     the bottom of this bribe first. The L.A. Times recently drew 
     a parallel with the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920's, but 
     who is Albert Fall in this modern day scandal?
       The Department's rule amounts to unfair taxation without 
     the representation which Members of Congress bring by passing 
     laws. If Congress chooses to change the mineral leasing laws 
     to prospectively modify the terms of a lease, so be it. It 
     should do so in the proper authorizing process with 
     opportunity for the public to be heard. A federal judge has 
     recently ruled the EPA has unconstitutionally encroached upon 
     the legislature's lawmaking authority when promulgating air 
     quality rules. We are convinced the Secretary of the 
     Interior, in a similar manner, is far exceeding his authority 
     unilaterally by assessing a value added tax.
       Let Congress define the law on mineral royalties. We 
     elected Members to do this job, we didn't elect Bruce Babbit 
     and a band of self-serving bureaucrats. Support the 
     Hutchison-Domenici amendment.
           Sincerely
         George C. Landrith, Executive Director, Frontiers of 
           Freedom; Patrick Burns, Director of Environmental 
           Policy, Citizens for a Sound Economy; Fred L. Smith, 
           Jr., President, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Al 
           Cors, Jr., Vice President for Government Affairs, 
           National Taxpayers Union; Jim Martin, President, 60 
           Plus; Grover C. Norquist, President, Americans for Tax 
           Reform; Chuck Cushman, Executive Director, American 
           Land Rights Association; Bruce Vincent, President, 
           Alliance for America; Adena Cook, Public Lands 
           Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition; David Ridenour, Vice 
           President, National Center for Public Policy Research.
                                  ____



                               People for the USA, Pueblo, CO,

                                                    July 27, 1999.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: On behalf of the 30,000 grassroots 
     members of People for the USA, I would once again like to 
     thank you for your diligent efforts to bring common sense to 
     royalty calculations and payments on federal oil and gas 
     leases.
       In their efforts to balance environmental protection with 
     growth through grassroots actions, our members (not just 
     those in Texas) always notice and appreciate strong, common 
     sense leadership such as you have shown.
       We support your fight to simplify the current royalty 
     calculation system. It is already a burden on a struggling 
     domestic oil and gas industry, and the Minerals Management 
     Service proposal simply adds insult to injury. Royalty 
     calculation is not, as Interior Communications Director 
     Michael Gauldin remarked, ``an issue to demagogue for another 
     year.'' With 52,000 jobs lost in just the last year?
       Worse, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has suggested that 
     domestic oilfield workers look to opportunity overseas. 
     Senator, an Administration that talks about kicking American 
     resource producers out of the country has a badly skwed set 
     of priorities.
       We appreciate what you are doing to straighten them out, 
     and will back you up at the grass roots any way we can.
       Again, on behalf of thousands of hard-working American 
     resource producers, Thank you. If you have any specific 
     suggestions as to how we can assist you, feel free to contact 
     me any time.
           Respectfully,
                                                Jeffrey P. Harris,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                 Citizens for a Sound Economy,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 1999.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: The 250,000 grassroots members of 
     Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) ask you to oppose any 
     attempts in the Senate to strike the provision in the 
     Interior Appropriation bill that delays implementation of a 
     final crude oil valuation rule.
       The current royalty system is needlessly complex and 
     results in time-consuming disagreements and expensive 
     litigation. The Minerals Management Service's (MMS) new oil 
     valuation proposal is, however, deeply flawed and would have 
     the ultimate effect of raising taxes on consumers.
       The 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act included moratorium 
     language concerning a final crude oil valuation rule with the 
     expectation that the Department of the Interior (DOI) and 
     industry would enter into meaningful negotiations in order to 
     resolve their differences. Unfortunately, more time is still 
     needed for government and industry is required to reach a 
     mutually beneficial compromise.
       CSE recognizes this need and opposes any attempt to halt 
     the moratorium, or curtail efforts to bring about a simpler, 
     more workable rule.
       Thank you for your attention and efforts, and for your 
     continuing leadership in this important matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Paul Beckner,
                                                        President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1603.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. WARNER (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced, yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 290 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Warner
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 1603) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to state for the record 
that, had I been able to, I would have voted against the Hutchison 
amendment to the Interior appropriations bill, which proposed to 
continue a moratorium on revising Interior regulations governing how 
much oil companies pay for oil drilled on public lands and resources. I 
regret that previous commitments prevented my availability to be in the 
Senate for this critical vote.
  This issue seems fairly straightforward. Oil companies are required 
to pay royalties for on- and off-shore oil drilling. Fees are based on 
current law which clearly states that ``the value of production for 
purposes of computing royalty on production . . . shall never be less 
than the fair market value of the production.'' Revenues generated from 
these royalties are returned to the federal treasury. However, for many 
years, oil companies have been allowed to set their own rates.
  In the past, I have supported similar amendments which extended a 
moratorium on rulemaking while affected parties were involved in 
negotiations to update the regulations. However, this process has been 
stalled for years, with little possibility of reaching resolution 
because these legislative riders imposing a moratorium on regulation 
changes have created a disincentive for oil companies to agree to any 
fee increases, resulting in taxpayers losing as much as $66 million a 
year.
  Who loses from this stalemate? The taxpayers--because royalties 
returned

[[Page 22372]]

to the federal treasury benefit states, Indian tribes, federal programs 
such as the Historic Preservation Fund and the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, and national parks.
  I supported cloture twice to end debate on this amendment because I 
believe we should vote on the underlying amendment to allow a fair and 
equitable solution of royalty valuation of oil on federal lands. On the 
final vote, however, I would have opposed the Hutchison amendment to 
continue this moratorium because I believe we should halt the process 
by which oil companies can set their own rules and determine how much 
they pay the taypayers for the use of public assets. I do not support a 
structure which only serves to benefit big oil companies and allows 
them to continue to be subsidized by the taxpayers.
  We should seek fairness for each and every industry doing business on 
public lands using public assets, and we should insist that same 
treatment be applied to oil companies. Fees that are assessed from 
drilling oil on public lands are directed back to the federal treasury 
and these fees should reflect the true value of the benefit oil 
companies receive.
  We have a responsibility, both as legislators and as public servants, 
to ensure responsible management of our public lands and a fair return 
to taxpayers. That responsibility includes determining a fair fee 
structure for oil drilling on public lands. Despite passage of this 
amendment which continues this moratorium for yet another year, I hope 
that we can reach a reasonable agreement to ensure proper payment by 
oil companies for utilizing public resources.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I had intended to offer to the fiscal year 
2000 Interior appropriations measure an amendment that would have 
repealed a provision that the Congress tucked into last year's massive 
omnibus appropriations bill.
  That provision established a one-year moratorium on any new or 
expanded Indian Self-Determination Act contract, grant, or compact 
between the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or the Indian Health Service, and 
Indian tribes.
  The establishment of this moratorium was a result of the growing 
shortfall between allowable contract support costs and the amounts 
appropriated for such costs.
  The rationale when we imposed the moratorium was that shortfalls in 
contract support costs would continue to increase as long as Indian 
tribes entered into new contracts with the BIA or IHS.
  Therefore, it was argued that the best way to prevent these 
increasing shortfalls simply would be to prevent the tribes from even 
entering into new contracts.
  Logical as it may sound, the moratorium has had the practical effect 
of preventing many Indian tribes from providing their members with the 
most basic of services, whether it involves health services, social 
services, law enforcement or road maintenance.
  Mr. President, while I have withdrawn my amendment at this time, I 
would like to emphasize the importance of addressing this issue.
  I would note that as we go to conference, the House version of this 
legislation does not contain the provision which extends the moratorium 
on self-determination contracts.
  Mr. President, I ask my friend from New Mexico whether he is familiar 
with Section 324 of H.R. 2466, the FY 2000 Interior appropriations 
measure, which is currently pending before the Senate.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am familiar with this provision. Section 324 extends 
the one-year moratorium established last year prohibiting Indian tribes 
from entering into or expanding existing Self-Determination Act 
contracts, grants or compacts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the 
Indian Health Service.
  Mr. REID. I would also ask the Senator to explain the effect of the 
moratorium contained within Section 324 of this legislation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Certainly. While this moratorium was established to 
address the growing shortfall between allowable contract support costs 
and the amounts appropriated for such costs, the practical effect of 
the prohibition has been to prevent many Indian tribes from providing 
their members with the most basic of services, whether it involves 
health services, social services, law enforcement or road maintenance.
  Mr. REID. I concur with the Senator.
  A prime example of this effect involves the Washoe Tribe of Nevada 
and California, which was prevented from entering into a contract for 
the most basic service, even though they were willing to proceed 
despite the realization that their contract support costs would not be 
fully covered.
  In the Alpine Country of the Washoe tribal lands, huge amounts of 
snowfall are not uncommon. The BIA has a snowplow, and until recently, 
also had a snowplow operator who would help clear snow after the lands 
were hit by storms. The BIA operator recently retired, however, so the 
tribe made plans to contract with the BIA, under the Indian Self-
Determination Act, to take possession of the plow in order to allow a 
fully-trained tribe member to operate the truck and clear the snow.
  You can imagine their surprise, therefore, when the local BIA office 
informed them that they were prohibited by statute from entering into 
that contract for such a simple, yet important, task of clearing snow.
  The inability to clear snow in a timely fashion created a logistical 
nightmare and a safety hazard, not to mention further strains on an 
already-strained tribal economy.
  For the Washoe Tribe, contract support funds weren't the primary 
concern; the safety and well-being of the tribe's members superseded 
that concern.
  I ask the Senator from New Mexico if he is familiar with these types 
of consequences.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I say to the senior Senator from Nevada that I am very 
familiar with this reality. In my home State of New Mexico, I have seen 
several instances where Indian tribes have been unable to provide their 
members with the most basic of services because the moratorium 
prohibits them from contracting with BIA or IHS.
  Mr. REID. Isn't it also true that the House of Representatives, 
during its consideration of the fiscal year 2000 Interior 
appropriations measure, removed the moratorium from its version of the 
legislation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The Senator is correct. During the debate of H.R. 2466 
in the House, Representative Dale Kildee of Michigan raised a point of 
order against the provision containing the moratorium on the grounds 
that the language violated a rule against legislating on appropriations 
bills.
  Mr. REID. And, isn't it also true that the Chair upheld that point of 
order, thereby striking the moratorium provision from the House 
measure.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The Senator from Nevada is correct. The House version 
of the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations does not contain a 
moratorium prohibiting Indian tribes from entering into or expanding 
existing Self-Determination Act contracts, grants or compacts with the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator from New Mexico and urge my colleagues 
to reevaluate this issue as we head to conference with the House.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I call upon my colleagues to support the 
fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill which will help preserve 
our natural wonders. The bill contains an amendment that I offered 
which would direct the forest service to conduct a study of the 
severity of Mountain Pine Beetle in the Rocky Mountain Region and 
report back to Congress within six months after enactment on how to 
address this problem. As adopted the amendment would not have any 
budget ramifications.
  My amendment is in the interest of our national forests. According to 
the Forest Service this outbreak of the Pine Beetle infestation is 
similar to the one that occurred in the 1970's. During that period 
there were peak annual losses of over 1 million trees as a result of 
the beetle. Right now we are seeing the beginning of another epidemic, 
which is continuing to grow.
  There are a number of factors which contribute to the current 
Mountain Pine Beetle problem--the general lack

[[Page 22373]]

of forest management, which includes proper timber harvesting, and 
increased susceptibility resulting from the suppression of forest 
fires.
  The current infestation is in the northern two-thirds of the front 
range of Colorado where the largest number of people live in my home 
state. Surveys by the Forest Service and Colorado State Forest Service 
survey shows 12,891 dead trees detected in 1996; 32,445 in 1997; and 
74,288 in 1998. All indications are that we will see a staggering 
150,000 trees infested in 1999. It is clear that if this trend 
continues we will see an outbreak worse than the 1970's. I am also 
concerned about the high possibility that dead timber from the pine 
beetle will catch on fire and wreak havoc on Colorado's front range.
  It is important for Congress to address this problem now before it 
gets out of control and the people of Colorado find themselves with 
thousands of dead trees. I urge my colleagues to support passage of the 
bill.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for third reading of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read for the third time, 
the question is, Shall the bill pass? On this question, the yeas and 
nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 291 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                                NAYS--10

     Ashcroft
     Biden
     Boxer
     Feingold
     Graham
     Lautenberg
     Murray
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The bill (H.R. 2466), as amended, was passed, as follows:

       Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives 
     (H.R. 2466) entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the 
     Department of the Interior and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other 
     purposes.'', do pass with the following amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, namely:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management


                   management of lands and resources

       For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement, 
     development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification, 
     acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and 
     performance of other functions, including maintenance of 
     facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands 
     and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, including the general administration of the 
     Bureau, and assessment of mineral potential of public lands 
     pursuant to Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150(a)), 
     $634,321,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $2,147,000 shall be available for assessment of the mineral 
     potential of public lands in Alaska pursuant to section 1010 
     of Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150); and of which not to 
     exceed $1,000,000 shall be derived from the special receipt 
     account established by the Land and Water Conservation Act of 
     1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)); and of which 
     $1,500,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2000 subject to 
     a match by at least an equal amount by the National Fish and 
     Wildlife Foundation, to such Foundation for cost-shared 
     projects supporting conservation of Bureau lands; in 
     addition, $33,529,000 for Mining Law Administration program 
     operations, including the cost of administering the mining 
     claim fee program; to remain available until expended, to be 
     reduced by amounts collected by the Bureau and credited to 
     this appropriation from annual mining claim fees so as to 
     result in a final appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $634,321,000, and $2,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, from communication site rental fees established by 
     the Bureau for the cost of administering communication site 
     activities: Provided, That appropriations herein made shall 
     not be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, 
     wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau or its 
     contractors.


                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for fire preparedness, suppression 
     operations, emergency rehabilitation and hazardous fuels 
     reduction by the Department of the Interior, $283,805,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 
     $5,025,000 shall be for the renovation or construction of 
     fire facilities: Provided, That such funds are also available 
     for repayment of advances to other appropriation accounts 
     from which funds were previously transferred for such 
     purposes: Provided further, That unobligated balances of 
     amounts previously appropriated to the ``Fire Protection'' 
     and ``Emergency Department of the Interior Firefighting 
     Fund'' may be transferred and merged with this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That persons hired pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 
     1469 may be furnished subsistence and lodging without cost 
     from funds available from this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 1856d, sums received 
     by a bureau or office of the Department of the Interior for 
     fire protection rendered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1856 et seq., 
     Protection of United States Property, may be credited to the 
     appropriation from which funds were expended to provide that 
     protection, and are available without fiscal year limitation.


                    central hazardous materials fund

       For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior 
     and any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial 
     action, including associated activities, of hazardous waste 
     substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums recovered from or 
     paid by a party in advance of or as reimbursement for 
     remedial action or response activities conducted by the 
     Department pursuant to section 107 or 113(f) of such Act, 
     shall be credited to this account to be available until 
     expended without further appropriation: Provided further, 
     That such sums recovered from or paid by any party are not 
     limited to monetary payments and may include stocks, bonds or 
     other personal or real property, which may be retained, 
     liquidated, or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary and 
     which shall be credited to this account.


                              construction

       For construction of buildings, recreation facilities, 
     roads, trails, and appurtenant facilities, $12,418,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                       payments in lieu of taxes

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20, 
     1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), $135,000,000, of 
     which not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for 
     administrative expenses: Provided, That no payment shall be 
     made to otherwise eligible units of local government if the 
     computed amount of the payment is less than $100.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out sections 205, 206, and 
     318(d) of Public Law 94-579, including administrative 
     expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, or interests 
     therein, $17,400,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended.


                   oregon and california grant lands

       For expenses necessary for management, protection, and 
     development of resources and for construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other 
     improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad 
     grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and 
     California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent 
     rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein 
     including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such 
     grant lands; $99,225,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That 25 percent of the aggregate of all receipts 
     during the current fiscal year from the revested Oregon and 
     California Railroad grant lands is hereby made

[[Page 22374]]

     a charge against the Oregon and California land-grant fund 
     and shall be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury 
     in accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of 
     title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).

               forest ecosystems health and recovery fund


                   (revolving fund, special account)

       In addition to the purposes authorized in Public Law 102-
     381, funds made available in the Forest Ecosystem Health and 
     Recovery Fund can be used for the purpose of planning, 
     preparing, and monitoring salvage timber sales and forest 
     ecosystem health and recovery activities such as release from 
     competing vegetation and density control treatments. The 
     Federal share of receipts (defined as the portion of salvage 
     timber receipts not paid to the counties under 43 U.S.C. 
     1181f and 43 U.S.C. 1181f-1 et seq., and Public Law 103-66) 
     derived from treatments funded by this account shall be 
     deposited into the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund.


                           range improvements

       For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands 
     and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands 
     pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), notwithstanding any 
     other Act, sums equal to 50 percent of all moneys received 
     during the prior fiscal year under sections 3 and 15 of the 
     Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) and the amount 
     designated for range improvements from grazing fees and 
     mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones lands 
     transferred to the Department of the Interior pursuant to 
     law, but not less than $10,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000 shall be 
     available for administrative expenses.


               service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

       For administrative expenses and other costs related to 
     processing application documents and other authorizations for 
     use and disposal of public lands and resources, for costs of 
     providing copies of official public land documents, for 
     monitoring construction, operation, and termination of 
     facilities in conjunction with use authorizations, and for 
     rehabilitation of damaged property, such amounts as may be 
     collected under Public Law 94-579, as amended, and Public Law 
     93-153, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of section 
     305(a) of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)), any moneys 
     that have been or will be received pursuant to that section, 
     whether as a result of forfeiture, compromise, or settlement, 
     if not appropriate for refund pursuant to section 305(c) of 
     that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)), shall be available and may be 
     expended under the authority of this Act by the Secretary to 
     improve, protect, or rehabilitate any public lands 
     administered through the Bureau of Land Management which have 
     been damaged by the action of a resource developer, 
     purchaser, permittee, or any unauthorized person, without 
     regard to whether all moneys collected from each such action 
     are used on the exact lands damaged which led to the action: 
     Provided further, That any such moneys that are in excess of 
     amounts needed to repair damage to the exact land for which 
     funds were collected may be used to repair other damaged 
     public lands.


                       miscellaneous trust funds

       In addition to amounts authorized to be expended under 
     existing laws, there is hereby appropriated such amounts as 
     may be contributed under section 307 of the Act of October 
     21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and such amounts as may be 
     advanced for administrative costs, surveys, appraisals, and 
     costs of making conveyances of omitted lands under section 
     211(b) of that Act, to remain available until expended.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management shall be 
     available for purchase, erection, and dismantlement of 
     temporary structures, and alteration and maintenance of 
     necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the 
     United States has title; up to $100,000 for payments, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence 
     concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau; 
     miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement 
     activities authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be 
     accounted for solely on his certificate, not to exceed 
     $10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the 
     Bureau may, under cooperative cost-sharing and partnership 
     arrangements authorized by law, procure printing services 
     from cooperators in connection with jointly produced 
     publications for which the cooperators share the cost of 
     printing either in cash or in services, and the Bureau 
     determines the cooperator is capable of meeting accepted 
     quality standards.

                United States Fish and Wildlife Service


                          resource management

       For necessary expenses of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, for scientific and economic studies, 
     conservation, management, investigations, protection, and 
     utilization of fishery and wildlife resources, except whales, 
     seals, and sea lions, maintenance of the herd of long-horned 
     cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, general 
     administration, and for the performance of other authorized 
     functions related to such resources by direct expenditure, 
     contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable 
     agreements with public and private entities, $684,569,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2001, except as 
     otherwise provided herein, of which $400,000 shall be 
     available for grants under the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife 
     Restoration Program, and of which $300,000 shall be available 
     for spartina grass research being conducted by the University 
     of Washington, and of which $500,000 of the amount available 
     for consultation shall be available for development of a 
     voluntary-enrollment habitat conservation plan for cold water 
     fish in cooperation with the States of Idaho and Montana (of 
     which $250,000 shall be made available to each of the States 
     of Idaho and Montana), and of which $150,000 shall be 
     available to Michigan State University toward creation of a 
     community development database, and of which $11,701,000 
     shall remain available until expended for operation and 
     maintenance of fishery mitigation facilities constructed by 
     the Corps of Engineers under the Lower Snake River 
     Compensation Plan, authorized by the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976, to compensate for loss of fishery 
     resources from water development projects on the Lower Snake 
     River, and of which not less than $400,000 shall be available 
     to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for use in 
     reviewing applications from the State of Colorado under 
     section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1536), and in assisting the State of Colorado by providing 
     resources to develop and administer components of State 
     habitat conservation plans relating to the Preble's meadow 
     jumping mouse:  Provided, That not less than $1,000,000 for 
     high priority projects which shall be carried out by the 
     Youth Conservation Corps as authorized by the Act of August 
     13, 1970, as amended: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $5,932,000 shall be used for implementing subsections (a), 
     (b), (c), and (e) of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, 
     as amended, for species that are indigenous to the United 
     States (except for processing petitions, developing and 
     issuing proposed and final regulations, and taking any other 
     steps to implement actions described in subsections 
     (c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B)(i), or (c)(2)(B)(ii)): Provided further, 
     That of the amount available for law enforcement, up to 
     $400,000 to remain available until expended, may at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, be used for payment for 
     information, rewards, or evidence concerning violations of 
     laws administered by the Service, and miscellaneous and 
     emergency expenses of enforcement activity, authorized or 
     approved by the Secretary and to be accounted for solely on 
     his certificate: Provided further, That of the amount 
     provided for environmental contaminants, up to $1,000,000 may 
     remain available until expended for contaminant sample 
     analyses: Provided further, That all fines collected by the 
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for violations of the Marine 
     Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1362-1407) and implementing 
     regulations shall be available to the Secretary, without 
     further appropriation, to be used for the expenses of the 
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in administering activities 
     for the protection and recovery of manatees, polar bears, sea 
     otters, and walruses, and shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That, heretofore and hereafter, 
     in carrying out work under reimbursable agreements with any 
     state, local, or tribal government, the U.S. Fish and 
     Wildlife Service may, without regard to 31 U.S.C. 1341 and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, 
     record obligations against accounts receivable from such 
     entities, and shall credit amounts received from such 
     entities to this appropriation, such credit to occur within 
     90 days of the date of the original request by the Service 
     for payment: Provided further, That all funds received by the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service from responsible 
     parties, heretofore and through fiscal year 2000, for site-
     specific damages to National Wildlife Refuge System lands 
     resulting from the exercise of privately-owned oil and gas 
     rights associated with such lands in the States of Louisiana 
     and Texas (other than damages recoverable under the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
     Liability Act (26 U.S.C. 4611 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.), or section 311 of the Clean Water 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.)), shall be available to the 
     Secretary, without further appropriation and until expended 
     to (1) complete damage assessments of the impacted site by 
     the Secretary; (2) mitigate or restore the damaged resources; 
     and (3) monitor and study the recovery of such damaged 
     resources.


                              construction

       For construction and acquisition of buildings and other 
     facilities required in the conservation, management, 
     investigation, protection, and utilization of fishery and 
     wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands and 
     interests therein; $40,434,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, a single procurement for the construction of 
     facilities at the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge 
     may be issued which includes the full scope of the project: 
     Provided further, That the solicitation and the contract 
     shall contain the clauses ``availability of funds'' found at 
     48 C.F.R. 52.232.18.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, $56,444,000, to be derived 
     from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to remain 
     available until expended, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 
     shall be available to the Boyer Chute National Wildlife 
     Refuge for land acquisition.

[[Page 22375]]




            cooperative endangered species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as 
     amended, $21,480,000, to be derived from the Cooperative 
     Endangered Species Conservation Fund, and to remain available 
     until expended.


                     national wildlife refuge fund

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17, 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $10,000,000.


                multinational species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the African Elephant 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4203, 4211-4213, 4221-4225, 
     4241-4245, and 1538), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 
     1997 (16 U.S.C. 4261-4266), and the Rhinoceros and Tiger 
     Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301-5306), $2,400,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That funds made 
     available under this Act, Public Law 105-277, and Public Law 
     105-83 for rhinoceros, tiger, and Asian elephant conservation 
     programs are exempt from any sanctions imposed against any 
     country under section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2799aa-1).


               north american wetlands conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233, 
     as amended, $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.


              wildlife conservation and appreciation fund

       For necessary expenses of the Wildlife Conservation and 
     Appreciation Fund, $800,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations and funds available to the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of 
     not to exceed 70 passenger motor vehicles, of which 61 are 
     for replacement only (including 36 for police-type use); 
     repair of damage to public roads within and adjacent to 
     reservation areas caused by operations of the Service; 
     options for the purchase of land at not to exceed $1 for each 
     option; facilities incident to such public recreational uses 
     on conservation areas as are consistent with their primary 
     purpose; and the maintenance and improvement of aquaria, 
     buildings, and other facilities under the jurisdiction of the 
     Service and to which the United States has title, and which 
     are used pursuant to law in connection with management and 
     investigation of fish and wildlife resources: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the Service may, under 
     cooperative cost sharing and partnership arrangements 
     authorized by law, procure printing services from cooperators 
     in connection with jointly produced publications for which 
     the cooperators share at least one-half the cost of printing 
     either in cash or services and the Service determines the 
     cooperator is capable of meeting accepted quality standards: 
     Provided further, That the Service may accept donated 
     aircraft as replacements for existing aircraft: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior may not spend any of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act for the purchase of lands or 
     interests in lands to be used in the establishment of any new 
     unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System unless the 
     purchase is approved in advance by the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in Senate Report 105-56.

                         National Park Service


                 operation of the national park system

       For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and 
     maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the 
     National Park Service (including special road maintenance 
     service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and 
     for the general administration of the National Park Service, 
     including not less than $1,000,000 for high priority projects 
     within the scope of the approved budget which shall be 
     carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as authorized by 
     16 U.S.C. 1706, $1,355,176,000, of which $8,800,000 is for 
     research, planning and interagency coordination in support of 
     land acquisition for Everglades restoration shall remain 
     available until expended, and of which not to exceed 
     $8,000,000, to remain available until expended, is to be 
     derived from the special fee account established pursuant to 
     title V, section 5201 of Public Law 100-203.


                  national recreation and preservation

       For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs, 
     natural programs, cultural programs, heritage partnership 
     programs, environmental compliance and review, international 
     park affairs, statutory or contractual aid for other 
     activities, and grant administration, not otherwise provided 
     for, $51,451,000, of which not less than $1,500,000 shall be 
     available to carry out the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 
     Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.): Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the National Park 
     Service may hereafter recover all fees derived from providing 
     necessary review services associated with historic 
     preservation tax certification, and such funds shall be 
     available until expended without further appropriation for 
     the costs of such review services.


                       historic preservation fund

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the Historic 
     Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), and the 
     Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public 
     Law 104-333), $42,412,000, to be derived from the Historic 
     Preservation Fund, to remain available until September 30, 
     2001, of which $8,422,000 pursuant to section 507 of Public 
     Law 104-333 shall remain available until expended.


                              construction

       For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of 
     physical facilities, including the modifications authorized 
     by section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and 
     Expansion Act of 1989, $223,153,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $1,100,000 shall be for realignment 
     of the Denali National Park entrance road, of which not less 
     than $3,500,000 shall be available for modifications to the 
     Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, and of which $90,000 
     shall be available for planning and development of 
     interpretive sites for the quadricentennial commemoration of 
     the Saint Croix Island International Historic Site, Maine, 
     including possible interpretive sites in Calais, Maine, and 
     of which not less than $1,000,000 shall be available, subject 
     to an Act of authorization, to conduct a feasibility study on 
     the preservation of certain Civil War battlefields along the 
     Vicksburg Campaign Trail, and of which $500,000 shall be 
     available for the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield: 
     Provided, That $5,000,000 for the Wheeling National Heritage 
     Area and $1,000,000 for Montpelier shall be derived from the 
     Historic Preservation Fund pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 470a: 
     Provided further, That $1,000,000 shall be made available for 
     Isle Royale National Park to address visitor facility and 
     infrastructure deterioration: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single 
     procurement for the construction of visitor facilities at 
     Brooks Camp at Katmai National Park and Preserve may be 
     issued which includes the full scope of the project: Provided 
     further, That the solicitation and the contract shall contain 
     the clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 
     52.232.18.


                    land and water conservation fund

                              (rescission)

       The contract authority provided for fiscal year 2000 by 16 
     U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.


                 land acquisition and state assistance

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of lands or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the 
     National Park Service, $87,725,000, to be derived from the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $500,000 is to administer the State 
     assistance program, and in addition $20,000,000 shall be 
     available to provide financial assistance to States and shall 
     be derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and of 
     which not less than $2,000,000 shall be used to acquire the 
     Weir Farm National Historic Site in Connecticut, and of which 
     not less than $3,000,000 shall be available for the 
     Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park, and 
     of which not less than $1,700,000 shall be available for the 
     acquisition of properties in Keweenaw National Historical 
     Park, Michigan, and of which $200,000 shall be available for 
     the acquisition of lands at Fort Sumter National Monument.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be 
     available for the purchase of not to exceed 384 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 298 shall be for replacement only, 
     including not to exceed 312 for police-type use, 12 buses, 
     and 6 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to 
     process any grant or contract documents which do not include 
     the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated to the National Park Service may be 
     used to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the 
     southern end of Ellis Island until such agreement has been 
     submitted to the Congress and shall not be implemented prior 
     to the expiration of 30 calendar days (not including any day 
     in which either House of Congress is not in session because 
     of adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day 
     certain) from the receipt by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President of the Senate of a full and 
     comprehensive report on the development of the southern end 
     of Ellis Island, including the facts and circumstances relied 
     upon in support of the proposed project.
       None of the funds in this Act may be spent by the National 
     Park Service for activities taken in direct response to the 
     United Nations Biodiversity Convention.
       The National Park Service may distribute to operating units 
     based on the safety record of each unit the costs of programs 
     designed to improve workplace and employee safety, and to 
     encourage employees receiving workers' compensation benefits 
     pursuant to chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     return to appropriate positions for which they are medically 
     able.

                    United States Geological Survey


                 surveys, investigations, and research

       For expenses necessary for the United States Geological 
     Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research 
     covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the 
     mineral and water resources of the United States, its 
     territories and possessions, and other areas as authorized by 
     43 U.S.C. 31, 1332, and 1340; classify lands as to their 
     mineral and water resources; give engineering supervision to 
     power permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30 
     U.S.C. 641); and publish and disseminate data relative to the 
     foregoing activities; and to conduct inquiries into the 
     economic

[[Page 22376]]

     conditions affecting mining and materials processing 
     industries (30 U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and 
     related purposes as authorized by law and to publish and 
     disseminate data; $813,093,000, of which $72,314,000 shall be 
     available only for cooperation with States or municipalities 
     for water resources investigations; and of which $16,400,000 
     shall remain available until expended for conducting 
     inquiries into the economic conditions affecting mining and 
     materials processing industries; and of which $2,000,000 
     shall remain available until expended for ongoing development 
     of a mineral and geologic data base; and of which 
     $160,248,000 shall be available until September 30, 2001 for 
     the biological research activity and the operation of the 
     Cooperative Research Units: Provided, That of the funds 
     available for the biological research activity, $1,000,000 
     shall be made available by grant to the University of Alaska 
     for conduct of, directly or through subgrants, basic marine 
     research activities in the North Pacific Ocean pursuant to a 
     plan approved by the Department of Commerce, the Department 
     of the Interior, and the State of Alaska: Provided further, 
     That none of these funds provided for the biological research 
     activity shall be used to conduct new surveys on private 
     property, unless specifically authorized in writing by the 
     property owner: Provided further, That no part of this 
     appropriation shall be used to pay more than one-half the 
     cost of topographic mapping or water resources data 
     collection and investigations carried on in cooperation with 
     States and municipalities.


                       administrative provisions

       The amount appropriated for the United States Geological 
     Survey shall be available for the purchase of not to exceed 
     53 passenger motor vehicles, of which 48 are for replacement 
     only; reimbursement to the General Services Administration 
     for security guard services; contracting for the furnishing 
     of topographic maps and for the making of geophysical or 
     other specialized surveys when it is administratively 
     determined that such procedures are in the public interest; 
     construction and maintenance of necessary buildings and 
     appurtenant facilities; acquisition of lands for gauging 
     stations and observation wells; expenses of the United States 
     National Committee on Geology; and payment of compensation 
     and expenses of persons on the rolls of the Survey duly 
     appointed to represent the United States in the negotiation 
     and administration of interstate compacts: Provided, That 
     activities funded by appropriations herein made may be 
     accomplished through the use of contracts, grants, or 
     cooperative agreements as defined in 31 U.S.C. 6302 et seq.: 
     Provided further, That the United States Geological Survey 
     may contract directly with individuals or indirectly with 
     institutions or nonprofit organizations, without regard to 41 
     U.S.C. 5, for the temporary or intermittent services of 
     students or recent graduates, who shall be considered 
     employees for the purposes of chapters 57 and 81 of title 5, 
     United States Code, relating to compensation for travel and 
     work injuries, and chapter 171 of title 28, United States 
     Code, relating to tort claims, but shall not be considered to 
     be Federal employees for any other purposes.

                      Minerals Management Service


                royalty and offshore minerals management

       For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and 
     environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and 
     collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing 
     laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other 
     minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts; 
     and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including 
     the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles 
     for replacement only; $110,682,000, of which $84,569,000 
     shall be available for royalty management activities; and an 
     amount not to exceed $124,000,000, to be credited to this 
     appropriation and to remain available until expended, from 
     additions to receipts resulting from increases to rates in 
     effect on August 5, 1993, from rate increases to fee 
     collections for Outer Continental Shelf administrative 
     activities performed by the Minerals Management Service over 
     and above the rates in effect on September 30, 1993, and from 
     additional fees for Outer Continental Shelf administrative 
     activities established after September 30, 1993: Provided, 
     That $3,000,000 for computer acquisitions shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2001: Provided further, That 
     funds appropriated under this Act shall be available for the 
     payment of interest in accordance with 30 U.S.C. 1721(b) and 
     (d): Provided further, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be 
     available for reasonable expenses related to promoting 
     volunteer beach and marine cleanup activities: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $15,000 under this heading shall be available for refunds of 
     overpayments in connection with certain Indian leases in 
     which the Director of the Minerals Management Service 
     concurred with the claimed refund due, to pay amounts owed to 
     Indian allottees or Tribes, or to correct prior unrecoverable 
     erroneous payments: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $198,000 shall be available to carry out the requirements of 
     section 215(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999.


                           oil spill research

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016, 
     title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII, 
     section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $6,118,000, 
     which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund, to remain available until expended.

          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement


                       regulation and technology

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public 
     Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to 
     exceed 10 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only; 
     $95,891,000: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior, 
     pursuant to regulations, may use directly or through grants 
     to States, moneys collected in fiscal year 2000 for civil 
     penalties assessed under section 518 of the Surface Mining 
     Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1268), to 
     reclaim lands adversely affected by coal mining practices 
     after August 3, 1977, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That appropriations for the Office of 
     Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may provide for 
     the travel and per diem expenses of State and tribal 
     personnel attending Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement sponsored training.


                    abandoned mine reclamation fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87, 
     as amended, including the purchase of not more than 10 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $185,658,000, 
     to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
     Fund and to remain available until expended; of which up to 
     $7,000,000, to be derived from the Federal Expenses Share of 
     the Fund, shall be for supplemental grants to States for the 
     reclamation of abandoned sites with acid mine rock drainage 
     from coal mines, and for associated activities, through the 
     Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative: Provided, That grants 
     to minimum program States will be $1,500,000 per State in 
     fiscal year 2000: Provided further, That of the funds herein 
     provided up to $18,000,000 may be used for the emergency 
     program authorized by section 410 of Public Law 95-87, as 
     amended, of which no more than 25 percent shall be used for 
     emergency reclamation projects in any one State and funds for 
     federally administered emergency reclamation projects under 
     this proviso shall not exceed $11,000,000: Provided further, 
     That prior year unobligated funds appropriated for the 
     emergency reclamation program shall not be subject to the 25 
     percent limitation per State and may be used without fiscal 
     year limitation for emergency projects: Provided further, 
     That pursuant to Public Law 97-365, the Department of the 
     Interior is authorized to use up to 20 percent from the 
     recovery of the delinquent debt owed to the United States 
     Government to pay for contracts to collect these debts: 
     Provided further, That funds made available under title IV of 
     Public Law 95-87 may be used for any required non-Federal 
     share of the cost of projects funded by the Federal 
     Government for the purpose of environmental restoration 
     related to treatment or abatement of acid mine drainage from 
     abandoned mines: Provided further, That such projects must be 
     consistent with the purposes and priorities of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act: Provided further, That 
     the State of Maryland may set aside the greater of $1,000,000 
     or 10 percent of the total of the grants made available to 
     the State under title IV of the Surface Mining Control and 
     Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.), 
     if the amount set aside is deposited in an acid mine drainage 
     abatement and treatment fund established under a State law, 
     pursuant to which law the amount (together with all interest 
     earned on the amount) is expended by the State to undertake 
     acid mine drainage abatement and treatment projects, except 
     that before any amounts greater than 10 percent of its title 
     IV grants are deposited in an acid mine drainage abatement 
     and treatment fund, the State of Maryland must first complete 
     all Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act priority one 
     projects.

                        Bureau of Indian Affairs


                      operation of indian programs

       For expenses necessary for the operation of Indian 
     programs, as authorized by law, including the Snyder Act of 
     November 2, 1921 (25 U.S.C. 13), the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450 et seq.), as amended, the Education Amendments of 1978 
     (25 U.S.C. 2001-2019), and the Tribally Controlled Schools 
     Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), as amended, 
     $1,633,296,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001 
     except as otherwise provided herein, of which not to exceed 
     $93,684,000 shall be for welfare assistance payments and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not 
     limited to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as 
     amended, not to exceed $115,229,000 shall be available for 
     payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract 
     support costs associated with ongoing contracts, grants, 
     compacts, or annual funding agreements entered into with the 
     Bureau prior to or during fiscal year 2000, as authorized by 
     such Act, except that tribes and tribal organizations may use 
     their tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of 
     ongoing contracts, grants, or compacts, or annual funding 
     agreements and for unmet welfare assistance costs; and of 
     which not to exceed $402,010,000 for school operations costs 
     of Bureau-funded schools and other education programs shall 
     become available on July 1, 2000, and shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2001; and of which not to exceed 
     $51,991,000 shall remain available until expended for housing 
     improvement, road maintenance, attorney fees, litigation 
     support, self-governance grants, the Indian Self-
     Determination Fund, land records improvement, and the Navajo-
     Hopi Settlement Program: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, including but not limited to the 
     Indian

[[Page 22377]]

     Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, and 25 U.S.C. 
     2008, not to exceed $44,160,000 within and only from such 
     amounts made available for school operations shall be 
     available to tribes and tribal organizations for 
     administrative cost grants associated with the operation of 
     Bureau-funded schools: Provided further, That any forestry 
     funds allocated to a tribe which remain unobligated as of 
     September 30, 2001, may be transferred during fiscal year 
     2002 to an Indian forest land assistance account established 
     for the benefit of such tribe within the tribe's trust fund 
     account: Provided further, That any such unobligated balances 
     not so transferred shall expire on September 30, 2002: 
     Provided further, That from amounts appropriated under this 
     heading $5,422,000 shall be made available to the 
     Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute and that from 
     amounts appropriated under this heading $8,611,000 shall be 
     made available to Haskell Indian Nations University.


                              construction

       For construction, repair, improvement, and maintenance of 
     irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other 
     facilities, including architectural and engineering services 
     by contract; acquisition of lands, and interests in lands; 
     and preparation of lands for farming, and for construction of 
     the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursuant to Public Law 
     87-483, $146,884,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such amounts as may be available for the 
     construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may be 
     transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed 6 percent of contract authority available 
     to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway 
     Trust Fund may be used to cover the road program management 
     costs of the Bureau: Provided further, That any funds 
     provided for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 
     13 shall be made available on a nonreimbursable basis: 
     Provided further, That for fiscal year 2000, in implementing 
     new construction or facilities improvement and repair project 
     grants in excess of $100,000 that are provided to tribally 
     controlled grant schools under Public Law 100-297, as 
     amended, the Secretary of the Interior shall use the 
     Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost Principles for 
     Assistance Programs contained in 43 CFR part 12 as the 
     regulatory requirements: Provided further, That such grants 
     shall not be subject to section 12.61 of 43 CFR; the 
     Secretary and the grantee shall negotiate and determine a 
     schedule of payments for the work to be performed: Provided 
     further, That in considering applications, the Secretary 
     shall consider whether the Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization would be deficient in assuring that the 
     construction projects conform to applicable building 
     standards and codes and Federal, tribal, or State health and 
     safety standards as required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(a), with 
     respect to organizational and financial management 
     capabilities: Provided further, That if the Secretary 
     declines an application, the Secretary shall follow the 
     requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2505(f): Provided 
     further, That any disputes between the Secretary and any 
     grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the disputes 
     provision in 25 U.S.C. 2508(e): Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, collections from 
     the settlements between the United States and the Puyallup 
     tribe concerning Chief Leschi school are made available for 
     school construction in fiscal year 2000 and hereafter: 
     Provided further, That in return for a quit claim deed to a 
     school building on the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe Indian 
     Reservation, the Secretary shall pay to U.K. Development, LLC 
     the amount of $375,000 from the funds made available under 
     this heading.


 indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to 
                                indians

       For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals 
     and for necessary administrative expenses, $27,131,000, to 
     remain available until expended; of which $25,260,000 shall 
     be available for implementation of enacted Indian land and 
     water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 101-618 and 
     102-575, and for implementation of other enacted water rights 
     settlements; and of which $1,871,000 shall be available 
     pursuant to Public Laws 99-264, 100-383, 103-402 and 100-580.


                 indian guaranteed loan program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $4,500,000, as authorized 
     by the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended: Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize total loan principal, any part of 
     which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed $59,682,000.
        In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan programs, $504,000.


                       administrative provisions

       The Bureau of Indian Affairs may carry out the operation of 
     Indian programs by direct expenditure, contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, compacts and grants, either directly or in 
     cooperation with States and other organizations.
       Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the 
     revolving fund for loans, the Indian loan guarantee and 
     insurance fund, and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program 
     account) shall be available for expenses of exhibits, and 
     purchase of not to exceed 229 passenger motor vehicles, of 
     which not to exceed 187 shall be for replacement only.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office 
     operations or pooled overhead general administration (except 
     facilities operations and maintenance) shall be available for 
     tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative agreements 
     with the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the provisions of the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act or the Tribal Self-Governance 
     Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).
       In the event any tribe returns appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for 
     distribution to other tribes, this action shall not diminish 
     the Federal government's trust responsibility to that tribe, 
     or the government-to-government relationship between the 
     United States and that tribe, or that tribe's ability to 
     access future appropriations.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau, other than the amounts provided 
     herein for assistance to public schools under 25 U.S.C. 452 
     et seq., shall be available to support the operation of any 
     elementary or secondary school in the State of Alaska.
       Appropriations made available in this or any other Act for 
     schools funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the 
     schools in the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996. 
     No funds available to the Bureau shall be used to support 
     expanded grades for any school or dormitory beyond the grade 
     structure in place or approved by the Secretary of the 
     Interior at each school in the Bureau school system as of 
     October 1, 1995. Funds made available under this Act may be 
     used to fund a Bureau-funded school (as that term is defined 
     in section 1146 of the Education Amendments of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 2026)) that shares a campus with a school that offers 
     expanded grades and that is not a Bureau-funded school, if 
     the jointly incurred costs of both schools are apportioned 
     between the 2 programs of the schools in such manner as to 
     ensure that the expanded grades are funded solely from funds 
     that are not made available through the Bureau.
       The Tate Topa Tribal School, the Black Mesa Community 
     School, the Alamo Navajo School, and other BIA-funded 
     schools, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the 
     Interior, may use prior year school operations funds for the 
     replacement or repair of BIA education facilities which are 
     in compliance with 25 U.S.C. 2005(a) and which shall be 
     eligible for operation and maintenance support to the same 
     extent as other BIA education facilities: Provided, That any 
     additional construction costs for replacement or repair of 
     such facilities begun with prior year funds shall be 
     completed exclusively with non-Federal funds.

                           Department Offices

                            Insular Affairs


                       ASSISTANCE TO TERRITORIES

       For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, 
     $67,325,000, of which: (1) $63,076,000 shall be available 
     until expended for technical assistance, including 
     maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, insular 
     management controls, coral reef initiative activities, and 
     brown tree snake control and research; grants to the 
     judiciary in American Samoa for compensation and expenses, as 
     authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 1661(c)); grants to the 
     Government of American Samoa, in addition to current local 
     revenues, for construction and support of governmental 
     functions; grants to the Government of the Virgin Islands as 
     authorized by law; grants to the Government of Guam, as 
     authorized by law; and grants to the Government of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by law (Public Law 94-
     241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $4,249,000 shall be available for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of Insular Affairs: 
     Provided, That all financial transactions of the territorial 
     and local governments herein provided for, including such 
     transactions of all agencies or instrumentalities established 
     or used by such governments, may be audited by the General 
     Accounting Office, at its discretion, in accordance with 
     chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, 
     That Northern Mariana Islands Covenant grant funding shall be 
     provided according to those terms of the Agreement of the 
     Special Representatives on Future United States Financial 
     Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands approved by 
     Public Law 104-134: Provided further, That Public Law 94-241, 
     as amended, is further amended (1) in section 4(b) by 
     deleting ``2002'' and inserting ``1999'' and by deleting the 
     comma after the words ``$11,000,000 annually'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof the following: ``and for fiscal year 2000, 
     payments to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
     shall be $5,580,000, but shall return to the level of 
     $11,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. In 
     fiscal year 2003, the payment to the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands shall be $5,420,000. Such payments 
     shall be''; and (2) in section (4)(c) by adding a new 
     subsection as follows: ``(4) for fiscal year 2000, $5,420,000 
     shall be provided to the Virgin Islands for correctional 
     facilities and other projects mandated by Federal law.'': 
     Provided further, That of the amounts provided for technical 
     assistance, sufficient funding shall be made available for a 
     grant to the Close Up Foundation: Provided further, That the 
     funds for the program of operations and maintenance 
     improvement are appropriated to institutionalize routine 
     operations and maintenance improvement of capital 
     infrastructure in American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
     Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and 
     the Federated States of Micronesia through

[[Page 22378]]

     assessments of long-range operations maintenance needs, 
     improved capability of local operations and maintenance 
     institutions and agencies (including management and 
     vocational education training), and project-specific 
     maintenance (with territorial participation and cost sharing 
     to be determined by the Secretary based on the individual 
     territory's commitment to timely maintenance of its capital 
     assets): Provided further, That any appropriation for 
     disaster assistance under this heading in this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts may be used as non-Federal 
     matching funds for the purpose of hazard mitigation grants 
     provided pursuant to section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5170c).


                      compact of free association

       For economic assistance and necessary expenses for the 
     Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 
     232, and 233 of the Compact of Free Association, and for 
     economic assistance and necessary expenses for the Republic 
     of Palau as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 232, and 
     233 of the Compact of Free Association, $20,545,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by Public Law 
     99-239 and Public Law 99-658.

                        Departmental Management


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for management of the Department of 
     the Interior, $62,203,000, of which not to exceed $8,500 may 
     be for official reception and representation expenses and up 
     to $1,000,000 shall be available for workers compensation 
     payments and unemployment compensation payments associated 
     with the orderly closure of the United States Bureau of 
     Mines.

                        Office of the Solicitor


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, 
     $36,784,000.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         Salaries and Expenses

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $26,614,000.

             Office of Special Trustee for American Indians


                         federal trust programs

       For operation of trust programs for Indians by direct 
     expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and 
     grants, $73,836,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That funds for trust management improvements may be 
     transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Departmental 
     Management: Provided further, That funds made available to 
     Tribes and Tribal organizations through contracts or grants 
     obligated during fiscal year 2000, as authorized by the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et 
     seq.), shall remain available until expended by the 
     contractor or grantee: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the statute of limitations shall 
     not commence to run on any claim, including any claim in 
     litigation pending on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     concerning losses to or mismanagement of trust funds, until 
     the affected tribe or individual Indian has been furnished 
     with an accounting of such funds from which the beneficiary 
     can determine whether there has been a loss: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary shall not be required to provide a quarterly 
     statement of performance for any Indian trust account that 
     has not had activity for at least eighteen months and has a 
     balance of $1.00 or less: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall issue an annual account statement and 
     maintain a record of any such accounts and shall permit the 
     balance in each such account to be withdrawn upon the express 
     written request of the account holder.


                    indian land consolidation pilot

       For implementation of a pilot program for consolidation of 
     fractional interests in Indian lands by direct expenditure or 
     cooperative agreement, $5,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, of which not to exceed $500,000 shall be available 
     for administrative expenses: Provided, That the Secretary may 
     enter into a cooperative agreement, which shall not be 
     subject to Public Law 93-638, as amended, with a tribe having 
     jurisdiction over the pilot reservation to implement the 
     program to acquire fractional interests on behalf of such 
     tribe: Provided further, That the Secretary may develop a 
     reservation-wide system for establishing the fair market 
     value of various types of lands and improvements to govern 
     the amounts offered for acquisition of fractional interests: 
     Provided further, That acquisitions shall be limited to one 
     or more pilot reservations as determined by the Secretary: 
     Provided further, That funds shall be available for 
     acquisition of fractional interests in trust or restricted 
     lands with the consent of its owners and at fair market 
     value, and the Secretary shall hold in trust for such tribe 
     all interests acquired pursuant to this pilot program: 
     Provided further, That all proceeds from any lease, resource 
     sale contract, right-of-way or other transaction derived from 
     the fractional interest shall be credited to this 
     appropriation, and remain available until expended, until the 
     purchase price paid by the Secretary under this appropriation 
     has been recovered from such proceeds: Provided further, That 
     once the purchase price has been recovered, all subsequent 
     proceeds shall be managed by the Secretary for the benefit of 
     the applicable tribe or paid directly to the tribe.

           Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration


                natural resource damage assessment fund

       To conduct natural resource damage assessment activities by 
     the Department of the Interior necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 
     et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public 
     Law 101-380), and Public Law 101-337; $4,621,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                       administrative provisions

       There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available 
     resources within the Working Capital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of 
     which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained by 
     donation, purchase or through available excess surplus 
     property: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, with 
     proceeds derived or trade-in value used to offset the 
     purchase price for the replacement aircraft: Provided 
     further, That no programs funded with appropriated funds in 
     the ``Departmental Management'', ``Office of the Solicitor'', 
     and ``Office of Inspector General'' may be augmented through 
     the Working Capital Fund or the Consolidated Working Fund.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or 
     office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the 
     emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft, 
     buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment 
     damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other 
     unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until funds specifically made 
     available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies 
     shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds 
     used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by 
     Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible.
       Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or 
     transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in 
     addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of 
     the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency 
     prevention of forest or range fires on or threatening lands 
     under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for 
     the emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its 
     jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or 
     actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other 
     unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to 
     actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage 
     assessment activities related to actual oil spills; for the 
     prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential 
     grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in 
     section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for 
     emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public 
     Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds 
     available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit 
     assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy 
     State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in 
     this title for fire suppression purposes shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding 
     fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies 
     for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in 
     connection with their use for fire suppression purposes, such 
     reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently 
     available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further, 
     That for emergency rehabilitation and wildfire suppression 
     activities, no funds shall be made available under this 
     authority until funds appropriated to ``Wildland Fire 
     Management'' shall have been exhausted: Provided further, 
     That all funds used pursuant to this section are hereby 
     designated by Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and must be 
     replenished by a supplemental appropriation which must be 
     requested as promptly as possible: Provided further, That 
     such replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro 
     rata basis, accounts from which emergency funds were 
     transferred.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for operation of warehouses, garages, shops, and 
     similar facilities, wherever consolidation of activities will 
     contribute to efficiency or economy, and said appropriations 
     shall be reimbursed for services rendered to any other 
     activity in the same manner as authorized by sections 1535 
     and 1536 of title 31, United States Code: Provided, That 
     reimbursements for costs and supplies, materials, equipment, 
     and for services rendered may be credited to the 
     appropriation current at the time such reimbursements are 
     received.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations made to the Department of the 
     Interior in this title shall be available for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the 
     Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone 
     service in private residences

[[Page 22379]]

     in the field, when authorized under regulations approved by 
     the Secretary; and the payment of dues, when authorized by 
     the Secretary, for library membership in societies or 
     associations which issue publications to members only or at a 
     price to members lower than to subscribers who are not 
     members.
       Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of the 
     Interior for salaries and expenses shall be available for 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902 and D.C. Code 4-204).
       Sec. 106. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for obligation in connection with contracts issued 
     for services or rentals for periods not in excess of twelve 
     months beginning at any time during the fiscal year.
       Sec. 107. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     leasing and related activities placed under restriction in 
     the President's moratorium statement of June 26, 1990, in the 
     areas of northern, central, and southern California; the 
     North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; and the eastern Gulf 
     of Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude and east of 86 
     degrees west longitude.
       Sec. 108. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     oil and natural gas preleasing, leasing, and related 
     activities, on lands within the North Aleutian Basin planning 
     area.
       Sec. 109. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct offshore oil and 
     natural gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the 
     eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area for any lands located 
     outside Sale 181, as identified in the final Outer 
     Continental Shelf 5-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 1997-
     2002.
       Sec. 110. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct oil and natural 
     gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the Mid-
     Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas.
       Sec. 111. Advance payments made under this title to Indian 
     tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia pursuant 
     to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) or the Tribally Controlled Schools 
     Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) may be invested by the 
     Indian tribe, tribal organization, or consortium before such 
     funds are expended for the purposes of the grant, compact, or 
     annual funding agreement so long as such funds are--
       (1) invested by the Indian tribe, tribal organization, or 
     consortium only in obligations of the United States, or in 
     obligations or securities that are guaranteed or insured by 
     the United States, or mutual (or other) funds registered with 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission and which only invest 
     in obligations of the United States or securities that are 
     guaranteed or insured by the United States; or
       (2) deposited only into accounts that are insured by an 
     agency or instrumentality of the United States, or are fully 
     collateralized to ensure protection of the funds, even in the 
     event of a bank failure.
       Sec. 112. (a) Employees of Helium Operations, Bureau of 
     Land Management, entitled to severance pay under 5 U.S.C. 
     5595, may apply for, and the Secretary of the Interior may 
     pay, the total amount of the severance pay to the employee in 
     a lump sum. Employees paid severance pay in a lump sum and 
     subsequently reemployed by the Federal Government shall be 
     subject to the repayment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5595(i)(2) 
     and (3), except that any repayment shall be made to the 
     Helium Fund.
       (b) Helium Operations employees who elect to continue 
     health benefits after separation shall be liable for not more 
     than the required employee contribution under 5 U.S.C. 
     8905a(d)(1)(A). The Helium Fund shall pay for 18 months the 
     remaining portion of required contributions.
       (c) The Secretary of the Interior may provide for training 
     to assist Helium Operations employees in the transition to 
     other Federal or private sector jobs during the facility 
     shut-down and disposition process and for up to 12 months 
     following separation from Federal employment, including 
     retraining and relocation incentives on the same terms and 
     conditions as authorized for employees of the Department of 
     Defense in section 348 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1995.
       (d) For purposes of the annual leave restoration provisions 
     of 5 U.S.C. 6304(d)(1)(B), the cessation of helium production 
     and sales, and other related Helium Program activities shall 
     be deemed to create an exigency of public business under, and 
     annual leave that is lost during leave years 1997 through 
     2001 because of 5 U.S.C. 6304 (regardless of whether such 
     leave was scheduled in advance) shall be restored to the 
     employee and shall be credited and available in accordance 
     with 5 U.S.C. 6304(d)(2). Annual leave so restored and 
     remaining unused upon the transfer of a Helium Program 
     employee to a position of the executive branch outside of the 
     Helium Program shall be liquidated by payment to the employee 
     of a lump sum from the Helium Fund for such leave.
       (e) Benefits under this section shall be paid from the 
     Helium Fund in accordance with section 4(c)(4) of the Helium 
     Privatization Act of 1996. Funds may be made available to 
     Helium Program employees who are or will be separated before 
     October 1, 2002 because of the cessation of helium production 
     and sales and other related activities. Retraining benefits, 
     including retraining and relocation incentives, may be paid 
     for retraining commencing on or before September 30, 2002.
       (f) This section shall remain in effect through fiscal year 
     2002.
       Sec. 113. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     including but not limited to the Indian Self-Determination 
     Act of 1975, as amended, funds available herein and hereafter 
     under this title for Indian self-determination or self-
     governance contract or grant support costs may be expended 
     only for costs directly attributable to contracts, grants and 
     compacts pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act and no 
     funds appropriated in this title shall be available for any 
     contract support costs or indirect costs associated with any 
     contract, grant, cooperative agreement, self-governance 
     compact or funding agreement entered into between an Indian 
     tribe or tribal organization and any entity other than an 
     agency of the Department of the Interior.
       Sec. 114. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
     National Park Service shall not develop or implement a 
     reduced entrance fee program to accommodate non-local travel 
     through a unit. The Secretary may provide for and regulate 
     local non-recreational passage through units of the National 
     Park System, allowing each unit to develop guidelines and 
     permits for such activity appropriate to that unit.
       Sec. 115. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     fiscal year 2000 and thereafter, the Secretary is authorized 
     to permit persons, firms or organizations engaged in 
     commercial, cultural, educational, or recreational activities 
     (as defined in section 612a of title 40, United States Code) 
     not currently occupying such space to use courtyards, 
     auditoriums, meeting rooms, and other space of the main and 
     south Interior building complex, Washington, D.C., the 
     maintenance, operation, and protection of which has been 
     delegated to the Secretary from the Administrator of General 
     Services pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949, and to assess reasonable charges 
     therefore, subject to such procedures as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate for such uses. Charges may be for the space, 
     utilities, maintenance, repair, and other services. Charges 
     for such space and services may be at rates equivalent to the 
     prevailing commercial rate for comparable space and services 
     devoted to a similar purpose in the vicinity of the main and 
     south Interior building complex, Washington, D.C. for which 
     charges are being assessed. The Secretary may without further 
     appropriation hold, administer, and use such proceeds within 
     the Departmental Management Working Capital Fund to offset 
     the operation of the buildings under his jurisdiction, 
     whether delegated or otherwise, and for related purposes, 
     until expended.
       Sec. 116. (a) In this section--
       (1) the term ``Huron Cemetery'' means the lands that form 
     the cemetery that is popularly known as the Huron Cemetery, 
     located in Kansas City, Kansas, as described in subsection 
     (b)(3); and
       (2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       (b)(1) The Secretary shall take such action as may be 
     necessary to ensure that the lands comprising the Huron 
     Cemetery (as described in paragraph (3)) are used only in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       (2) The lands of the Huron Cemetery shall be used only--
       (A) for religious and cultural uses that are compatible 
     with the use of the lands as a cemetery; and
       (B) as a burial ground.
       (3) The description of the lands of the Huron Cemetery is 
     as follows:
       The tract of land in the NW quarter of sec. 10, T. 11 S., 
     R. 25 E., of the sixth principal meridian, in Wyandotte 
     County, Kansas (as surveyed and marked on the ground on 
     August 15, 1888, by William Millor, Civil Engineer and 
     Surveyor), described as follows:
       ``Commencing on the Northwest corner of the Northwest 
     Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 10;
       ``Thence South 28 poles to the `true point of beginning';
       ``Thence South 71 degrees East 10 poles and 18 links;
       ``Thence South 18 degrees and 30 minutes West 28 poles;
       ``Thence West 11 and one-half poles;
       ``Thence North 19 degrees 15 minutes East 31 poles and 15 
     feet to the `true point of beginning', containing 2 acres or 
     more.''.
       Sec. 117. Grazing permits and leases which expire or are 
     transferred, in this or any fiscal year, shall be renewed 
     under the same terms and conditions as contained in the 
     expiring permit or lease until such time as the Secretary of 
     the Interior completes the process of renewing the permits or 
     leases in compliance with all applicable laws. Nothing in 
     this language shall be deemed to affect the Secretary's 
     statutory authority or the rights of the permittee or lessee.
       Sec. 118. Refunds or rebates received on an on-going basis 
     from a credit card services provider under the Department of 
     the Interior's charge card programs may be deposited to and 
     retained without fiscal year limitation in the Departmental 
     Working Capital Fund established under 43 U.S.C. 1467 and 
     used to fund management initiatives of general benefit to the 
     Department of the Interior's bureaus and offices as 
     determined by the Secretary or his designee.
       Sec. 119. Appropriations made in this title under the 
     headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special 
     Trustee for American Indians and any available unobligated 
     balances from prior appropriations Acts made under the same 
     headings, shall be available for expenditure or transfer for 
     Indian trust management

[[Page 22380]]

     activities pursuant to the Trust Management Improvement 
     Project High Level Implementation Plan.
       Sec. 120. All properties administered by the National Park 
     Service at Fort Baker, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 
     and leases, concessions, permits and other agreements 
     associated with those properties, shall be exempt from all 
     taxes and special assessments, except sales tax, by the State 
     of California and its political subdivisions, including the 
     County of Marin and the City of Sausalito. Such areas of Fort 
     Baker shall remain under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
       Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to negotiate and 
     enter into agreements and leases, without regard to section 
     321 of chapter 314 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 
     303b), with any person, firm, association, organization, 
     corporation, or governmental entity for all or part of the 
     property within Fort Baker administered by the Secretary as 
     part of Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The proceeds of 
     the agreements or leases shall be retained by the Secretary 
     and such proceeds shall be available, without future 
     appropriation, for the preservation, restoration, operation, 
     maintenance and interpretation and related expenses incurred 
     with respect to Fort Baker properties.
       Sec. 122. None of the funds provided in this or any other 
     Act may be used for pre-design, design or engineering for the 
     removal of the Elwha or Glines Canyon Dams, or for the actual 
     removal of either dam, until such time as both dams are 
     acquired by the Federal government notwithstanding the 
     proviso in section 3(a) of Public Law 102-495, as amended.
       Sec. 123. (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as 
     the ``Battle of Midway National Memorial Study Act''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) September 2, 1997, marked the 52nd anniversary of the 
     United States victory over Japan in World War II.
       (2) The Battle of Midway proved to be the turning point in 
     the war in the Pacific, as United States Navy forces 
     inflicted such severe losses on the Imperial Japanese Navy 
     during the battle that the Imperial Japanese Navy never again 
     took the offensive against the United States or the allied 
     forces.
       (3) During the Battle of Midway on June 4, 1942, an 
     outnumbered force of the United States Navy, consisting of 29 
     ships and other units of the Armed Forces under the command 
     of Admiral Nimitz and Admiral Spruance, out-maneuvered and 
     out-fought 350 ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy.
       (4) It is in the public interest to study whether Midway 
     Atoll should be established as a national memorial to the 
     Battle of Midway to express the enduring gratitude of the 
     American people for victory in the battle and to inspire 
     future generations of Americans with the heroism and 
     sacrifice of the members of the Armed Forces who achieved 
     that victory.
       (5) The historic structures and facilities on Midway Atoll 
     should be protected and maintained.
       (c) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to require a study 
     of the feasibility and suitability of designating the Midway 
     Atoll as a National Memorial to the Battle of Midway within 
     the boundaries of the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. 
     The study of the Midway Atoll and its environs shall include, 
     but not be limited to, identification of interpretative 
     opportunities for the educational and inspirational benefit 
     of present and future generations, and of the unique and 
     significant circumstances involving the defense of the island 
     by the United States in World War II and the Battle of 
     Midway.
       (d) Study of the Establishment of Midway Atoll as a 
     National Memorial to the Battle of Midway.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than six months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall, acting through the Director of the National Park 
     Service and in consultation with the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, the International Midway 
     Memorial Foundation, Inc. (hereafter referred to as the 
     ``Foundation''), and Midway Phoenix Corporation, carry out a 
     study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing 
     Midway Atoll as a national memorial to the Battle of Midway.
       (2) Considerations.--In studying the establishment of 
     Midway Atoll as a national memorial to the Battle of Midway 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall address the 
     following:
       (A) The appropriate federal agency to manage such a 
     memorial, and whether and under what conditions, to lease or 
     otherwise allow the Foundation or another appropriate entity 
     to administer, maintain, and fully utilize the lands 
     (including any equipment, facilities, infrastructure, and 
     other improvements) and waters of Midway Atoll if designated 
     as a national memorial.
       (B) Whether designation as a national memorial would 
     conflict with current management of Midway Atoll as a 
     wildlife refuge and whether, and under what circumstances, 
     the needs and requirements of the wildlife refuge should take 
     precedence over the needs and requirements of a national 
     memorial on Midway Atoll.
       (C) Whether, and under what conditions, to permit the use 
     of the facilities on Sand Island for purposes other than a 
     wildlife refuge or a national memorial.
       (D) Whether to impose conditions on public access to Midway 
     Atoll as a national memorial.
       (3) Report.--Upon completion of the study required under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit, to the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate 
     and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives, a report on the study, which shall include 
     any recommendations for further legislative action. The 
     report shall also include an inventory of all known past and 
     present facilities and structures of historical significance 
     on Midway Atoll and its environs. The report shall include a 
     description of each historic facility and structure and a 
     discussion of how each will contribute to the designation and 
     interpretation of the proposed national memorial.
       (e) Continuing Discussions.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to delay or prohibit discussions between the 
     Foundation and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or 
     any other government entity regarding the future role of the 
     Foundation on Midway Atoll.
       Sec. 124. Where any Federal lands included within the 
     boundary of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area as 
     designated by the Secretary of the Interior on April 5, 1990 
     (Lake Roosevelt Cooperative Management Agreement) were 
     utilized as of March 31, 1997, for grazing purposes pursuant 
     to a permit issued by the National Park Service, the person 
     or persons so utilizing such lands shall be entitled to renew 
     said permit under such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     may prescribe, for the lifetime of the permittee or 20 years, 
     whichever is less.
       Sec. 125. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to redistribute any 
     Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including tribal base 
     funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by transferring 
     funds on the basis of identified, unmet needs. No tribe shall 
     receive a reduction in Tribal Priority Allocation funds of 
     more than ten percent in fiscal year 2000.
       Sec. 126. None of the Funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Department 
     of the Interior to transfer land into trust status for the 
     Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe in Clark County, Washington, 
     unless and until the tribe and the county reach a legally 
     enforceable agreement that addresses the financial impact of 
     new development on the county, school district, fire 
     district, and other local governments and the impact on 
     zoning and development.
       Sec. 127. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available to the Department of the Interior or agencies of 
     the Department of the Interior to implement Secretarial Order 
     3206, issued June 5, 1997.
       Sec. 128. Of the funds appropriated in title V of the 
     Fiscal Year 1998 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation 
     Act, Public Law 105-83, the Secretary shall provide up to 
     $2,000,000 in the form of a grant to the Fairbanks North Star 
     Borough for acquisition of undeveloped parcels along the 
     banks of the Chena River for the purpose of establishing an 
     urban greenbelt within the Borough. The Secretary shall 
     further provide from the funds appropriated in title V up to 
     $1,000,000 in the form of a grant to the Municipality of 
     Anchorage for the acquisition of approximately 34 acres of 
     wetlands adjacent to a municipal park in Anchorage (the Jewel 
     Lake Wetlands).
       Sec. 129. Walker River Basin. $200,000 is appropriated to 
     the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in fiscal year 
     2000 to be used through a contract or memorandum of 
     understanding with the Bureau of Reclamation, for: (1) the 
     investigation of alternatives, and if appropriate, the 
     implementation of one or more of the alternatives, to the 
     modification of Weber Dam on the Walker River Paiute 
     Reservation in Nevada; (2) an evaluation of the feasibility 
     and effectiveness of the installation of a fish ladder at 
     Weber Dam; and (3) an evaluation of opportunities for 
     Lahontan cutthroat trout restoration in the Walker River 
     Basin. $125,000 is appropriated to the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs in fiscal year 2000 for the benefit of the Walker 
     River Paiute Tribe, in recognition of the negative effects on 
     the Tribe associated with delay in modification of Weber Dam, 
     for an analysis of the feasibility of establishing a 
     Tribally-operated Lahontan cutthroat trout hatchery on the 
     Walker River as it flows through the Walker River Indian 
     Reservation: Provided, That for the purposes of this section: 
     (A) $100,000 shall be transferred from the $250,000 allocated 
     for the United States Geological Survey, Water Resources 
     Investigations, Truckee River Water Quality Settlement 
     Agreement; (B) $50,000 shall be transferred from the $150,000 
     allocated for the United States Geological Survey, Water 
     Resources Investigations, Las Vegas Wash endocrine disruption 
     study; and (C) $175,000 shall be transferred from the funds 
     allocated for the Bureau of Land Management, Wildland Fire 
     Management.
       Sec. 130. Funding for the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge 
     and Certain Projects in the State of Ohio. Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, from the unobligated balances 
     appropriated for a grant to the State of Ohio for the 
     acquisition of the Howard Farm near Metzger Marsh, Ohio--
       (1) $500,000 shall be derived by transfer and made 
     available for the acquisition of land in the Ottawa National 
     Wildlife Refuge;
       (2) $302,000 shall be derived by transfer and made 
     available for the Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission, Ohio; 
     and
       (3) $198,000 shall be derived by transfer and made 
     available for a grant to the State of Ohio for the 
     preservation and restoration of the birthplace, boyhood home, 
     and schoolhouse of Ulysses S. Grant.
       Sec. 131. Prohibition on Class III Gaming Procedures. No 
     funds made available under this Act may be expended to 
     implement the final

[[Page 22381]]

     rule published on April 12, 1999, at 64 Fed. Reg. 17535.
       Sec. 132. Conveyance to Nye County, Nevada. (a) 
     Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) County.--The term ``County'' means Nye County, Nevada.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of 
     Land Management.
       (b) Parcels Conveyed for Use of the Nevada Science and 
     Technology Center.--
       (1) In general.--For no consideration and at no other cost 
     to the County, the Secretary shall convey to the County, 
     subject to valid existing rights, all right, title, and 
     interest in and to the parcels of public land described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Land description.--The parcels of public land referred 
     to in paragraph (1) are the following:
       (A) The portion of Sec. 13 north of United States Route 95, 
     T. 15 S. R. 49 E, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada.
       (B) In Sec. 18, T. 15 S., R. 50 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, 
     Nevada:
       (i) W \1/2\ W \1/2\ NW \1/4\.
       (ii) The portion of the W \1/2\ W \1/2\ SW \1/4\ north of 
     United States Route 95.
       (3) Use.--
       (A) In general.--The parcels described in paragraph (2) 
     shall be used for the construction and operation of the 
     Nevada Science and Technology Center as a nonprofit museum 
     and exposition center, and related facilities and activities.
       (B) Reversion.--The conveyance of any parcel described in 
     paragraph (2) shall be subject to reversion to the United 
     States, at the discretion of Secretary, if the parcel is used 
     for a purpose other than that specified in subparagraph (A).
       (c) Parcels Conveyed for Other Use for a commercial 
     purpose.--
       (1) Right to purchase.--For a period of 5 years beginning 
     on the date of enactment of this Act, the County shall have 
     the exclusive right to purchase the parcels of public land 
     described in paragraph (2) for the fair market value of the 
     parcels, as determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Land description.--The parcels of public land referred 
     to in paragraph (1) are the following parcels in Sec. 18, T. 
     15 S., R. 50 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
       (A) E \1/2\ NW \1/4\.
       (B) E \1/2\ W \1/2\ NW \1/4\.
       (C) The portion of the E \1/2\ SW \1/4\ north of United 
     States Route 95.
       (D) The portion of the E \1/2\ W \1/2\ SW \1/4\ north of 
     United States Route 95.
       (E) The portion of the SE \1/4\ north of United States 
     Route 95.
       (3) Use of proceeds.--Proceeds of a sale of a parcel 
     described in paragraph (2)--
       (A) shall be deposited in the special account established 
     under section 4(e)(1)(C) of the Southern Nevada Public Land 
     Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2345); and
       (B) shall be available for use by the Secretary--
       (i) to reimburse costs incurred by the local offices of the 
     Bureau of Land Management in arranging the land conveyances 
     directed by this Act; and
       (ii) as provided in section 4(e)(3) of that Act (112 Stat. 
     2346).
       Sec. 133. Conveyance of Land to City of Mesquite, Nevada. 
     Section 3 of Public Law 99-548 (100 Stat. 3061; 110 Stat. 
     3009-202) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Fifth Area.--
       ``(1) Right to purchase.--For a period of 12 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the city of Mesquite, 
     Nevada, shall have the exclusive right to purchase the 
     parcels of public land described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Land description.--The parcels of public land 
     referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:
       ``(A) In T. 13 S., R. 70 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
       ``(i) The portion of sec. 27 north of Interstate Route 15.
       ``(ii) Sec. 28: NE \1/4\, S \1/2\ (except the Interstate 
     Route 15 right-of-way).
       ``(iii) Sec. 29: E \1/2\ NE \1/4\ SE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ SE \1/
     4\.
       ``(iv) The portion of sec. 30 south of Interstate Route 15.
       ``(v) The portion of sec. 31 south of Interstate Route 15.
       ``(vi) Sec. 32: NE \1/4\ NE \1/4\ (except the Interstate 
     Route 15 right-of-way), the portion of NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\ 
     south of Interstate Route 15, and the portion of W \1/2\ 
     south of Interstate Route 15.
       ``(vii) The portion of sec. 33 north of Interstate Route 
     15.
       ``(B) In T. 14 S., R. 70 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
       ``(i) Sec. 5: NW \1/4\.
       ``(ii) Sec. 6: N \1/2\.
       ``(C) In T. 13 S., R. 69 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
       ``(i) The portion of sec. 25 south of Interstate Route 15.
       ``(ii) The portion of sec. 26 south of Interstate Route 15.
       ``(iii) The portion of sec. 27 south of Interstate Route 
     15.
       ``(iv) Sec. 28: SW \1/4\ SE \1/4\.
       ``(v) Sec. 33: E \1/2\.
       ``(vi) Sec. 34.
       ``(vii) Sec. 35.
       ``(viii) Sec. 36.
       ``(3) Notification.--Not later than 10 years after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the city shall notify the 
     Secretary which of the parcels of public land described in 
     paragraph (2) the city intends to purchase.
       ``(4) Conveyance.--Not later than 1 year after receiving 
     notification from the city under paragraph (3), the Secretary 
     shall convey to the city the land selected for purchase.
       ``(5) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, until 
     the date that is 12 years after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, the parcels of public land described in paragraph 
     (2) are withdrawn from all forms of entry and appropriation 
     under the public land laws, including the mining laws, and 
     from operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing 
     laws.
       ``(6) Use of proceeds.--The proceeds of the sale of each 
     parcel--
       ``(A) shall be deposited in the special account established 
     under section 4(e)(1)(C) of the Southern Nevada Public Land 
     Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2345); and
       ``(B) shall be available for use by the Secretary--
       ``(i) to reimburse costs incurred by the local offices of 
     the Bureau of Land Management in arranging the land 
     conveyances directed by this Act; and
       ``(ii) as provided in section 4(e)(3) of that Act (112 
     Stat. 2346).
       ``(f) Sixth Area.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall convey to 
     the city of Mesquite, Nevada, in accordance with section 
     47125 of title 49, United States Code, up to 2,560 acres of 
     public land to be selected by the city from among the parcels 
     of land described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Land description.--The parcels of land referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are as follows:
       ``(A) In T. 13 S., R. 69 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
       ``(i) The portion of sec. 28 south of Interstate Route 15 
     (except S \1/2\ SE \1/4\).
       ``(ii) The portion of sec. 29 south of Interstate Route 15.
       ``(iii) The portion of sec. 30 south of Interstate Route 
     15.
       ``(iv) The portion of sec. 31 south of Interstate Route 15.
       ``(v) Sec. 32.
       ``(vi) Sec. 33: W \1/2\.
       ``(B) In T. 14 S., R. 69 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
       ``(i) Sec. 4.
       ``(ii) Sec. 5.
       ``(iii) Sec. 6.
       ``(iv) Sec. 8.
       ``(C) In T. 14 S., R. 68 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
       ``(i) Sec. 1.
       ``(ii) Sec. 12.
       ``(3) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, until 
     the date that is 12 years after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, the parcels of public land described in paragraph 
     (2) are withdrawn from all forms of entry and appropriation 
     under the public land laws, including the mining laws, and 
     from operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing 
     laws.''.
       Sec. 134. Quadricentennial Commemoration of the Saint Croix 
     Island International Historic Site. (a) Findings.--Congress 
     finds that--
       (1) in 1604, 1 of the first European colonization efforts 
     was attempted at St. Croix Island in Calais, Maine;
       (2) St. Croix Island settlement predated both the Jamestown 
     and Plymouth colonies;
       (3) St. Croix Island offers a rare opportunity to preserve 
     and interpret early interactions between European explorers 
     and colonists and Native Americans;
       (4) St. Croix Island is 1 of only 2 international historic 
     sites comprised of land administered by the National Park 
     Service;
       (5) the quadricentennial commemorative celebration honoring 
     the importance of the St. Croix Island settlement to the 
     countries and people of both Canada and the United States is 
     rapidly approaching;
       (6) the 1998 National Park Service management plans and 
     long-range interpretive plan call for enhancing visitor 
     facilities at both Red Beach and downtown Calais;
       (7) in 1982, the Department of the Interior and Canadian 
     Department of the Environment signed a memorandum of 
     understanding to recognize the international significance of 
     St. Croix Island and, in an amendment memorandum, agreed to 
     conduct joint strategic planning for the international 
     commemoration with a special focus on the 400th anniversary 
     of settlement in 2004;
       (8) the Department of Canadian Heritage has installed 
     extensive interpretive sites on the Canadian side of the 
     border; and
       (9) current facilities at Red Beach and Calais are 
     extremely limited or nonexistent for a site of this historic 
     and cultural importance.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) using funds made available by this Act, the National 
     Park Service should expeditiously pursue planning for 
     exhibits at Red Beach and the town of Calais, Maine; and
       (2) the National Park Service should take what steps are 
     necessary, including consulting with the people of Calais, to 
     ensure that appropriate exhibits at Red Beach and the town of 
     Calais are completed by 2004.
       Sec. 135. No funds appropriated for the Department of the 
     Interior by this Act or any other Act shall be used to study 
     or implement any plan to drain Lake Powell or to reduce the 
     water level of the lake below the range of water levels 
     required for the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam.
       Sec. 136. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act or any

[[Page 22382]]

     other provision of law, may be used by any officer, employee, 
     department or agency of the United States to impose or 
     require payment of an inspection fee in connection with the 
     import or export of shipments of fur-bearing wildlife 
     containing 1,000 or fewer raw, crusted, salted or tanned 
     hides or fur skins, or separate parts thereof, including 
     species listed under the Convention on International Trade in 
     Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora done at Washington 
     March 3, 1973 (27 UST 1027).
       Sec. 137. (a) None of the funds provided in this Act shall 
     be available to the Department of the Interior to deploy the 
     Trust Asset and Accounting Management System (TAAMS) in any 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs Area Office, with the exception of 
     the Billings Area Office, until 45 days after the Secretary 
     of the Interior certifies in writing to the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Indian Affairs that, 
     based on the Secretary's review and analysis, such system 
     meets the TAAMS contract requirements and the needs of the 
     system's customers including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
     the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians and 
     affected Indian tribes and individual Indians.
       (b) The Secretary shall certify that the following items 
     have been completed in accordance with generally accepted 
     guidelines for system development and acquisition and 
     indicate the source of those guidelines: Design and 
     functional requirements; legacy data conversion and use; 
     system acceptance and user acceptance tests; project 
     management functions such as deployment and implementation 
     planning, risk management, quality assurance, configuration 
     management, and independent verification and validation 
     activities. The General Accounting Office shall provide an 
     independent assessment of the Secretary's certification 
     within 15 days of the Secretary's certification.
       Sec. 138. No funds appropriated under this Act shall be 
     expended to implement sound thresholds or standards in the 
     Grand Canyon National Park until 90 days after the National 
     Park Service has provided to the Congress a report describing 
     (1) the reasonable scientific basis for such sound thresholds 
     or standard and (2) the peer review process used to validate 
     such sound thresholds or standard.
       Sec. 139. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall use any funds previously 
     appropriated for the Department of the Interior for fiscal 
     year 1998 for acquisition of lands to acquire land from the 
     Borough of Haines, Alaska for subsequent conveyance to settle 
     claims filed against the United States with respect to land 
     in the Borough of Haines prior to January 1, 1999: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of the Interior shall not convey lands 
     acquired pursuant to this section unless and until a signed 
     release of claims is executed.
       Sec. 140. In addition to any amounts otherwise made 
     available under this title to carry out the Tribally 
     Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978, 
     $1,500,000 is appropriated to carry out such Act for fiscal 
     year 2000.
       Sec. 141. Pilot Wildlife Data System. From funds made 
     available by this Act to the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, the Secretary of the Interior shall use $1,000,000 
     to develop a pilot wildlife data system to provide 
     statistical data relating to wildlife management and control 
     in the State of Alabama.
       Sec. 142. BIA Post Secondary Schools Funding Formula. (a) 
     In General.--Any funds appropriated for Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs Operations for Central Office Operations for Post 
     Secondary Schools for any fiscal year that exceed the amount 
     appropriated for the schools for fiscal year 2000 shall be 
     allocated among the schools proportionate to the unmet need 
     of the schools as determined by the Post Secondary Funding 
     Formula adopted by the Office of Indian Education Programs 
     and the schools on May 13, 1999.
       (b) Applicability.--This section shall apply for fiscal 
     year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal year.
       Sec. 143. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     conveying the Twin Cities Research Center under the authority 
     provided by Public Law 104-14, as amended by Public Law 104-
     208, the Secretary may accept and retain land and other forms 
     of reimbursement: Provided, That the Secretary may retain and 
     use any such reimbursement until expended and without further 
     appropriation: (1) for the benefit of the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System within the State of Minnesota; and (2) for all 
     activities authorized by Public Law 100-696, 16 U.S.C. 460zz.

     SEC. 144. VALUATION OF CRUDE OIL FOR ROYALTY PURPOSES.

       None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used 
     to issue a notice of final rulemaking with respect to the 
     valuation of crude oil for royalty purposes (including a 
     rulemaking derived from proposed rules published at 62 Fed. 
     Reg. 3742 (January 24, 1997), 62 Fed. Reg. 36030 (July 3, 
     1997), and 63 Fed. Reg. 6113 (1998)) until September 30, 
     2000.

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service


                     forest and rangeland research

       For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as 
     authorized by law, $187,444,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That within the funds available, $250,000 
     shall be used to assess the potential hydrologic and 
     biological impact of lead and zinc mining in the Mark Twain 
     National Forest of Southern Missouri: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act may be used by the Secretary of 
     the Interior to issue a prospecting permit for hardrock 
     mineral exploration on Mark Twain National Forest land in the 
     Current River/Jack's Fork River--Eleven Point Watershed (not 
     including Mark Twain National Forest land in Townships 31N 
     and 32N, Range 2 and Range 3 West, on which mining activities 
     are taking place as of the date of enactment of this Act): 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act may be 
     used by the Secretary of the Interior to segregate or 
     withdraw land in the Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri 
     under section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
     Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1714).

                       state and private forestry

       For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing 
     technical and financial assistance to States, territories, 
     possessions, and others, and for forest health management, 
     cooperative forestry, and education and land conservation 
     activities, $190,793,000, to remain available until expended, 
     as authorized by law.


                         national forest system

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and 
     utilization of the National Forest System, and for 
     administrative expenses associated with the management of 
     funds provided under the headings ``Forest and Rangeland 
     Research'', ``State and Private Forestry'', ``National Forest 
     System'', ``Wildland Fire Management'', ``Reconstruction and 
     Construction'', and ``Land Acquisition'', $1,239,051,000, to 
     remain available until expended, which shall include 50 
     percent of all moneys received during prior fiscal years as 
     fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965, as amended, in accordance with section 4 of the Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): Provided, That of the amount provided 
     under this heading, $750,000 shall be used for a supplemental 
     environmental impact statement for the Forest Service/
     Weyerhaeuser Huckleberry land exchange, which shall be 
     completed by September 30, 2000.


                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression 
     activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency 
     fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands 
     under fire protection agreement, and for emergency 
     rehabilitation of burned-over National Forest System lands 
     and water, $560,980,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such funds are available for repayment of 
     advances from other appropriations accounts previously 
     transferred for such purposes: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, up to $4,000,000 
     of funds appropriated under this appropriation may be used 
     for Fire Science Research in support of the Joint Fire 
     Science Program: Provided further, That all authorities for 
     the use of funds, including the use of contracts, grants, and 
     cooperative agreements, available to execute the Forest 
     Service and Rangeland Research appropriation, are also 
     available in the utilization of these funds for Fire Science 
     Research.
       For an additional amount to cover necessary expenses for 
     emergency rehabilitation, presuppression due to emergencies, 
     and wildfire suppression activities of the Forest Service, 
     $90,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That these funds shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request for a 
     specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.


                     reconstruction and maintenance

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, $362,095,000, to remain available until 
     expended for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and 
     acquisition of buildings and other facilities, and for 
     construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of 
     forest roads and trails by the Forest Service as authorized 
     by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205: Provided, 
     That up to $15,000,000 of the funds provided herein for road 
     maintenance shall be available for the decommissioning of 
     roads, including unauthorized roads not part of the 
     transportation system, which are no longer needed: Provided 
     further, That no funds shall be expended to decommission any 
     system road until notice and an opportunity for public 
     comment has been provided on each decommissioning project: 
     Provided further, That any unexpended balances of amounts 
     previously appropriated for Forest Service Reconstruction and 
     Construction as well as any unobligated balances remaining in 
     the National Forest System appropriation in the facility 
     maintenance and trail maintenance extended budget line items 
     at the end of fiscal year 1999 may be transferred to and made 
     a part of this appropriation.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11), including administrative expenses, 
     and for acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, 
     in accordance with statutory authority applicable to the 
     Forest Service, $36,370,000, to be derived from the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That subject to valid existing rights, all 
     Federally owned lands and interests in lands

[[Page 22383]]

     within the New World Mining District comprising approximately 
     26,223 acres, more or less, which are described in a Federal 
     Register notice dated August 19, 1997 (62 F.R. 44136-44137), 
     are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation, 
     and disposal under the public land laws, and from location, 
     entry and patent under the mining laws, and from disposition 
     under all mineral and geothermal leasing laws.


         acquisition of lands for national forests special acts

       For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of 
     the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the 
     Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San 
     Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests, 
     California, as authorized by law, $1,069,000, to be derived 
     from forest receipts.


            acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges

       For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from 
     funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments, 
     public school districts, or other public school authorities 
     pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until expended.


                         range betterment fund

       For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection, 
     and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the 
     prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on 
     lands in National Forests in the sixteen Western States, 
     pursuant to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as 
     amended, to remain available until expended, of which not to 
     exceed 6 percent shall be available for administrative 
     expenses associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation, 
     protection, and improvements.

    gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research

       For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $92,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund 
     established pursuant to the above Act.


               administrative provisions, forest service

       Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal 
     year shall be available for: (1) purchase of not to exceed 
     110 passenger motor vehicles of which 15 will be used 
     primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 109 shall 
     be for replacement; acquisition of 25 passenger motor 
     vehicles from excess sources, and hire of such vehicles; 
     operation and maintenance of aircraft, the purchase of not to 
     exceed three for replacement only, and acquisition of 
     sufficient aircraft from excess sources to maintain the 
     operable fleet at 213 aircraft for use in Forest Service 
     wildland fire programs and other Forest Service programs; 
     notwithstanding other provisions of law, existing aircraft 
     being replaced may be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in 
     value used to offset the purchase price for the replacement 
     aircraft; (2) services pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to 
     exceed $100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (3) 
     purchase, erection, and alteration of buildings and other 
     public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4) acquisition of land, 
     waters, and interests therein, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5) 
     for expenses pursuant to the Volunteers in the National 
     Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (6) 
     the cost of uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and 
     (7) for debt collection contracts in accordance with 31 
     U.S.C. 3718(c).
       None of the funds made available under this Act shall be 
     obligated or expended to abolish any region, to move or close 
     any regional office for National Forest System administration 
     of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture without the 
     consent of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service 
     may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management 
     appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency 
     rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters 
     under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe 
     burning conditions.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for assistance to or through the Agency for International 
     Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service in 
     connection with forest and rangeland research, technical 
     information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall 
     be available to support forestry and related natural resource 
     activities outside the United States and its territories and 
     possessions, including technical assistance, education and 
     training, and cooperation with United States and 
     international organizations.
       None of the funds made available to the Forest Service 
     under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the 
     provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b unless 
     the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in House Report 105-163.
       None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be 
     reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
     procedures contained in House Report 105-163.
       No funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund of the Department of 
     Agriculture without the approval of the Chief of the Forest 
     Service.
       Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to 
     conduct a program of not less than $1,000,000 for high 
     priority projects within the scope of the approved budget 
     which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as 
     authorized by the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended by 
     Public Law 93-408.
       Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $1,500 is 
     available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official 
     reception and representation expenses.
       To the greatest extent possible, and in accordance with the 
     Final Amendment to the Shawnee National Forest Plan, none of 
     the funds available in this Act shall be used for preparation 
     of timber sales using clearcutting or other forms of even-
     aged management in hardwood stands in the Shawnee National 
     Forest, Illinois.
       Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
     593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to 
     $2,250,000 may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial 
     assistance to the National Forest Foundation, without regard 
     to when the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative 
     expenses or projects on or benefitting National Forest System 
     lands or related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That 
     of the Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no 
     more than $400,000 shall be available for administrative 
     expenses: Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain, 
     by the end of the period of Federal financial assistance, 
     private contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis 
     funds made available by the Forest Service: Provided further, 
     That the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-
     Federal recipient for a project at the same rate that the 
     recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching funds: 
     Provided further, That hereafter, the National Forest 
     Foundation may hold Federal funds made available but not 
     immediately disbursed and may use any interest or other 
     investment income earned (before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act) on Federal funds to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 101-593: Provided further, That such 
     investments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations 
     of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both 
     principal and interest by the United States.
       Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244, up to 
     $2,650,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall 
     be available for matching funds to the National Fish and 
     Wildlife Foundation, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3701-3709, 
     and may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial 
     assistance, without regard to when expenses are incurred, for 
     projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or 
     related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That the 
     Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of Federal 
     financial assistance, private contributions to match on at 
     least one-for-one basis funds advanced by the Forest Service: 
     Provided further, That the Foundation may transfer Federal 
     funds to a non-Federal recipient for a project at the same 
     rate that the recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching 
     funds.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for interactions with and providing technical assistance to 
     rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of 
     the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the 
     ``National Forest System'' and ``Reconstruction and 
     Construction'' accounts and planned to be allocated to 
     activities under the ``Jobs in the Woods'' program for 
     projects on National Forest land in the State of Washington 
     may be granted directly to the Washington State Department of 
     Fish and Wildlife for accomplishment of planned projects. 
     Twenty percent of said funds shall be retained by the Forest 
     Service for planning and administering projects. Project 
     selection and prioritization shall be accomplished by the 
     Forest Service with such consultation with the State of 
     Washington as the Forest Service deems appropriate.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge 
     National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and (2), 
     and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
       The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to enter into 
     grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements as appropriate 
     with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, as well as with 
     public and other private agencies, organizations, 
     institutions, and individuals, to provide for the 
     development, administration, maintenance, or restoration of 
     land, facilities, or Forest Service programs, at the Grey 
     Towers National Historic Landmark: Provided, That, subject to 
     such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     prescribe, any such public or private agency, organization, 
     institution, or individual may solicit, accept, and 
     administer private gifts of money and real or personal 
     property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the 
     activities and services at the Grey Towers National Historic 
     Landmark: Provided further, That such gifts may be accepted 
     notwithstanding the fact that a donor conducts business with 
     the Department of Agriculture in any capacity.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be 
     available, as determined by the Secretary, for payments to 
     Del Norte County, California, pursuant to sections 13(e) and 
     14 of the Smith River National Recreation Area Act (Public 
     Law 101-612).
       For purposes of the Southeast Alaska Economic Disaster Fund 
     as set forth in section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134, the 
     direct grants provided in subsection (c) shall be considered 
     direct payments for purposes of all applicable law except 
     that these direct grants may not be used for lobbying 
     activities.
       No employee of the Department of Agriculture may be 
     detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by this 
     Act to any other agency or office of the Department for more 
     than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or 
     office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency

[[Page 22384]]

     or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the 
     period of assignment.
       The Forest Service shall fund overhead, national 
     commitments, indirect expenses, and any other category for 
     use of funds which are expended at any units, that are not 
     directly related to the accomplishment of specific work on-
     the-ground (referred to as ``indirect expenditures''), from 
     funds available to the Forest Service, unless otherwise 
     prohibited by law: Provided, That the Forest Service shall 
     implement and adhere to the definitions of indirect 
     expenditures established pursuant to Public Law 105-277 on a 
     nationwide basis without flexibility for modification by any 
     organizational level except the Washington Office, and when 
     changed by the Washington Office, such changes in definition 
     shall be reported in budget requests submitted by the Forest 
     Service: Provided further, That the Forest Service shall 
     provide in all future budget justifications, planned indirect 
     expenditures in accordance with the definitions, summarized 
     and displayed to the Regional, Station, Area, and detached 
     unit office level. The justification shall display the 
     estimated source and amount of indirect expenditures, by 
     expanded budget line item, of funds in the agency's annual 
     budget justification. The display shall include appropriated 
     funds and the Knutson-Vandenberg, Brush Disposal, Cooperative 
     Work-Other, and Salvage Sale funds. Changes between estimated 
     and actual indirect expenditures shall be reported in 
     subsequent budget justifications: Provided further, That 
     during fiscal year 2000 the Secretary shall limit total 
     annual indirect obligations from the Brush Disposal, 
     Cooperative Work-Other, Knutson-Vandenberg, Reforestation, 
     Salvage Sale, and Roads and Trails funds to 20 percent of the 
     total obligations from each fund.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service may 
     be used to reimburse the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), 
     Department of Agriculture, for travel and related expenses 
     incurred as a result of OGC assistance or participation 
     requested by the Forest Service at meetings, training 
     sessions, management reviews, land purchase negotiations and 
     similar non-litigation related matters: Provided, That no 
     more than $500,000 is transferred: Provided further, That 
     future budget justifications for both the Forest Service and 
     the Department of Agriculture clearly display the sums 
     previously transferred and request future funding levels.
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service 
     may be used for necessary expenses in the event of law 
     enforcement emergencies as necessary to protect natural 
     resources and public or employee safety.
       From any unobligated balances available at the start of 
     fiscal year 2000, the amount of $11,550,000 shall be 
     allocated to the Alaska Region, in addition to the funds 
     appropriated to sell timber in the Alaska Region under this 
     Act, for expenses directly related to preparing sufficient 
     additional timber for sale in the Alaska Region to establish 
     a three-year timber supply.
       Of any funds available to Region 10 of the Forest Service, 
     exclusive of funds for timber sales management or road 
     reconstruction/construction, $7,000,000 shall be used in 
     fiscal year 2000 to support implementation of the recent 
     amendments to the Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada which 
     require fisheries enhancements on the Tongass National 
     Forest.
       The Forest Service is authorized through the Forest Service 
     existing budget to reimburse Harry Fray for the cost of his 
     home, $143,406 (1997 dollars) destroyed by arson on June 21, 
     1990 in retaliation for his work with the Forest Service.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                         clean coal technology


                               (deferral)

       Of the funds made available under this heading for 
     obligation in prior years, $156,000,000 shall not be 
     available until October 1, 2000: Provided, That funds made 
     available in previous appropriations Acts shall be available 
     for any ongoing project regardless of the separate request 
     for proposal under which the project was selected.

                 fossil energy research and development

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), 
     including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 
     and equitable interests in any real property or any facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for 
     conducting inquiries, technological investigations and 
     research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 
     disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social 
     and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 
     performed under the minerals and materials science programs 
     at the Albany Research Center in Oregon, $390,975,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which $24,000,000 shall 
     be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the 
     Biomass Energy Development account: Provided, That no part of 
     the sum herein made available shall be used for the field 
     testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery of oil and gas.

                      alternative fuels production


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Moneys received as investment income on the principal 
     amount in the Great Plains Project Trust at the Norwest Bank 
     of North Dakota, in such sums as are earned as of October 1, 
     1999, shall be deposited in this account and immediately 
     transferred to the general fund of the Treasury. Moneys 
     received as revenue sharing from operation of the Great 
     Plains Gasification Plant and settlement payments shall be 
     immediately transferred to the general fund of the Treasury.

                 naval petroleum and oil shale reserves

       The requirements of 10 U.S.C. 7430(b)(2)(B) shall not apply 
     to fiscal year 2000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, unobligated funds remaining from 
     prior years shall be available for all naval petroleum and 
     oil shale reserve activities.

                          energy conservation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation 
     activities, $684,817,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which $1,600,000 shall be for grants to municipal 
     governments for cost-shared research projects in buildings, 
     municipal processes, transportation and sustainable urban 
     energy systems, and of which $25,000,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from unobligated balances in the Biomass Energy 
     Development account: Provided, That $168,000,000 shall be for 
     use in energy conservation programs as defined in section 
     3008(3) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public 
     Law 99-509, such sums shall be allocated to the eligible 
     programs as follows: $135,000,000 for weatherization 
     assistance grants and $33,000,000 for State energy 
     conservation grants.

                          economic regulation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $2,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      strategic petroleum reserve

       For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $159,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided,  That the 
     Secretary of Energy hereafter may transfer to the SPR 
     Petroleum Account such funds as may be necessary to carry out 
     drawdown and sale operations of the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve initiated under section 161 of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241) from any funds available to 
     the Department of Energy under this or any other Act. All 
     funds transferred pursuant to this authority must be 
     replenished as promptly as possible from oil sale receipts 
     pursuant to the drawdown and sale.

                   energy information administration

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $70,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


            administrative provisions, department of energy

       Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year 
     shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase, 
     repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the 
     General Services Administration for security guard services.
       From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may 
     be made to other agencies of the Government for the 
     performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
       None of the funds made available to the Department of 
     Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance 
     authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless 
     specific provision is made for such programs in an 
     appropriations Act.
       The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings, 
     equipment, and other contributions from public and private 
     sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other 
     agencies, Federal, State, private or foreign: Provided, That 
     revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of 
     the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of 
     products in connection with projects of the Department 
     appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary 
     of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for 
     plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
     sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing 
     contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder 
     of revenues after the making of such payments shall be 
     covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided 
     further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof 
     entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority 
     shall not be executed prior to the expiration of 30 calendar 
     days (not including any day in which either House of Congress 
     is not in session because of adjournment of more than three 
     calendar days to a day certain) from the receipt by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of 
     the Senate of a full comprehensive report on such project, 
     including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support 
     of the proposed project.
       No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the 
     Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process 
     procurement documents for programs or projects for which 
     appropriations have not been made.
       In addition to other authorities set forth in this Act, the 
     Secretary may accept fees and contributions from public and 
     private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds 
     account, and prosecute projects using such fees and 
     contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State or 
     private agencies or concerns.

[[Page 22385]]



                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                         Indian Health Service


                         Indian Health Services

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5, 
     1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of 
     the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian 
     Health Service, $2,138,001,000, together with payments 
     received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b) 
     for services furnished by the Indian Health Service: 
     Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal 
     organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any 
     other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the 
     grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available 
     to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year 
     limitation: Provided further, That $12,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic Health 
     Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $384,442,000 for 
     contract medical care shall remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2001: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided, up to $17,000,000 shall be used to carry out the 
     loan repayment program under section 108 of the Indian Health 
     Care Improvement Act: Provided further, That funds provided 
     in this Act may be used for one-year contracts and grants 
     which are to be performed in two fiscal years, so long as the 
     total obligation is recorded in the year for which the funds 
     are appropriated: Provided further, That the amounts 
     collected by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 
     the authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act shall remain available until expended for the 
     purpose of achieving compliance with the applicable 
     conditions and requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the 
     Social Security Act (exclusive of planning, design, or 
     construction of new facilities): Provided further, That 
     funding contained herein, and in any earlier appropriations 
     Acts for scholarship programs under the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2001: Provided further, That 
     amounts received by tribes and tribal organizations under 
     title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall be 
     reported and accounted for and available to the receiving 
     tribes and tribal organizations until expended: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the amounts provided herein, not to exceed $203,781,000 shall 
     be for payments to tribes and tribal organizations for 
     contract or grant support costs associated with contracts, 
     grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding agreements 
     between the Indian Health Service and a tribe or tribal 
     organization pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 
     1975, as amended, prior to or during fiscal year 2000.


                        indian health facilities

       For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and 
     equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities, 
     including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans, 
     specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase 
     and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers; 
     and for provision of domestic and community sanitation 
     facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act 
     of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
     Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and 
     titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with 
     respect to environmental health and facilities support 
     activities of the Indian Health Service, $189,252,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated for the planning, design, construction or 
     renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian 
     tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to 
     construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities.

            administrative provisions, indian health service

       Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent 
     to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under 
     5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; 
     purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints; 
     purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and 
     renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms 
     or allowances therefore as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are 
     concerned with the functions or activities for which the 
     appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved 
     conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or 
     activities: Provided, That in accordance with the provisions 
     of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, non-Indian 
     patients may be extended health care at all tribally 
     administered or Indian Health Service facilities, subject to 
     charges, and the proceeds along with funds recovered under 
     the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) 
     shall be credited to the account of the facility providing 
     the service and shall be available without fiscal year 
     limitation: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     law or regulation, funds transferred from the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian 
     Sanitation Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated to the Indian 
     Health Service in this Act, except those used for 
     administrative and program direction purposes, shall not be 
     subject to limitations directed at curtailing Federal travel 
     and transportation: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, funds previously or herein made 
     available to a tribe or tribal organization through a 
     contract, grant, or agreement authorized by title I or title 
     III of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
     Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450), may be deobligated and 
     reobligated to a self-determination contract under title I, 
     or a self-governance agreement under title III of such Act 
     and thereafter shall remain available to the tribe or tribal 
     organization without fiscal year limitation: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available to the Indian 
     Health Service in this Act shall be used to implement the 
     final rule published in the Federal Register on September 16, 
     1987, by the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     relating to the eligibility for the health care services of 
     the Indian Health Service until the Indian Health Service has 
     submitted a budget request reflecting the increased costs 
     associated with the proposed final rule, and such request has 
     been included in an appropriations Act and enacted into law: 
     Provided further, That funds made available in this Act are 
     to be apportioned to the Indian Health Service as 
     appropriated in this Act, and accounted for in the 
     appropriation structure set forth in this Act: Provided 
     further, That with respect to functions transferred by the 
     Indian Health Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the 
     Indian Health Service is authorized to provide goods and 
     services to those entities, on a reimbursable basis, 
     including payment in advance with subsequent adjustment, and 
     the reimbursements received therefrom, along with the funds 
     received from those entities pursuant to the Indian Self-
     Determination Act, may be credited to the same or subsequent 
     appropriation account which provided the funding, said 
     amounts to remain available until expended: Provided further, 
     That reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or 
     services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain 
     total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead 
     associated with the provision of goods, services, or 
     technical assistance: Provided further, That the 
     appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service may not 
     be altered without advance approval of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations.

                         OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

              Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531, 
     $8,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act 
     are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups 
     including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands 
     residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and 
     all others certified as eligible and not included in the 
     preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the 
     Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any 
     single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985, 
     was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi 
     Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such 
     household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be 
     provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided 
     further, That the Office shall relocate any certified 
     eligible relocatees who have selected and received an 
     approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a 
     replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the 
     land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.

    Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts 
                              Development


                        payment to the institute

       For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska 
     Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title 
     XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56 part A), 
     $4,250,000.

                        Smithsonian Institution


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as 
     authorized by law, including research in the fields of art, 
     science, and history; development, preservation, and 
     documentation of the National Collections; presentation of 
     public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation, 
     dissemination, and exchange of information and publications; 
     conduct of education, training, and museum assistance 
     programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for 
     terms not to exceed 30 years), and protection of buildings, 
     facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to 5 replacement 
     passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and cleaning of 
     uniforms for employees; $367,062,000, of which not to exceed 
     $40,704,000 for the instrumentation program, collections 
     acquisition, Museum Support Center equipment and move, 
     exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum of the 
     American Indian, the repatriation of skeletal remains 
     program, research equipment, information management, and 
     Latino programming shall remain available until expended, and 
     including such funds as may be necessary to support American 
     overseas research centers and a total of $125,000 for the 
     Council of American Overseas Research

[[Page 22386]]

     Centers: Provided, That funds appropriated herein are 
     available for advance payments to independent contractors 
     performing research services or participating in official 
     Smithsonian presentations.

        construction and improvements, national zoological park

       For necessary expenses of planning, construction, 
     remodeling, and equipping of buildings and facilities at the 
     National Zoological Park, by contract or otherwise, 
     $4,400,000, to remain available until expended.


                  repair and restoration of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair and restoration of 
     buildings owned or occupied by the Smithsonian Institution, 
     by contract or otherwise, as authorized by section 2 of the 
     Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), including not to 
     exceed $10,000 for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $35,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That contracts awarded for environmental systems, protection 
     systems, and exterior repair or restoration of buildings of 
     the Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated with selected 
     contractors and awarded on the basis of contractor 
     qualifications as well as price.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses for construction, $19,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


           administrative provisions, smithsonian institution

       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     initiate the design for any proposed expansion of current 
     space or new facility without consultation with the House and 
     Senate Appropriations Committees.
       The Smithsonian Institution shall not use Federal funds in 
     excess of the amount specified in Public Law 101-185 for the 
     construction of the National Museum of the American Indian.

                        National Gallery of Art


                         salaries and expenses

       For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of 
     Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and 
     administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by 
     the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the 
     public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9, 
     Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the 
     treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum, 
     and art associations or societies whose publications or 
     services are available to members only, or to members at a 
     price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for 
     protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance, 
     alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches, 
     and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and 
     repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by 
     contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms, 
     or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms 
     and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $61,438,000, 
     of which not to exceed $3,026,000 for the special exhibition 
     program shall remain available until expended.


            repair, restoration and renovation of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and 
     renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or 
     occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or 
     otherwise, as authorized, $6,311,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for 
     environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior 
     repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of 
     Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded 
     on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.

             John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts


                       operations and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and 
     security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
     Arts, $14,000,000.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses for capital repair and 
     rehabilitation of the existing features of the building and 
     site of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, 
     $20,000,000, to remain available until expended.

            Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of 
     the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356) 
     including hire of passenger vehicles and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $6,040,000.

           National Foundation on the arts and the Humanities

                    National Endowment for the Arts


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $90,000,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for 
     the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the 
     arts through assistance to organizations and individuals 
     pursuant to sections 5(c) and 5(g) of the Act, for program 
     support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to 
     remain available until expended.


                            matching grants

       To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965, as amended, $13,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall be available for obligation 
     only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of 
     gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property 
     accepted by the chairman or by grantees of the Endowment 
     under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections 
     11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding 
     fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been 
     appropriated.

                 National Endowment for the Humanities


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $101,000,000, shall be available to the National Endowment 
     for the Humanities for support of activities in the 
     humanities, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for 
     administering the functions of the Act, to remain available 
     until expended.


                            matching grants

       To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965, as amended, $14,700,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $10,700,000 shall be available to the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of 
     section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal 
     to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of 
     money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by 
     grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections 
     11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding 
     fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been 
     appropriated.

                Institute of Museum and Library Services

                       office of museum services


                       grants and administration

       For carrying out subtitle C of the Museum and Library 
     Services Act of 1996, as amended, $23,905,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                       administrative provisions

       None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any 
     grant or contract documents which do not include the text of 
     18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may 
     be used for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may 
     be used as necessary for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

                        Commission of Fine Arts

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a 
     Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $1,078,000: 
     Provided, That beginning in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter, 
     the Commission is authorized to charge fees to cover the full 
     costs of its publications, and such fees shall be credited to 
     this account as an offsetting collection, to remain available 
     until expended without further appropriation.

               national capital arts and cultural affairs

       For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190 
     (20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $7,000,000.

               Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $2,906,000: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for 
     compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher 
     positions.

                  National Capital Planning Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National 
     Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $6,312,000: 
     Provided, That all appointed members will be compensated at a 
     rate not to exceed the rate for level IV of the Executive 
     Schedule.

                United States Holocaust Memorial Council

                       holocaust memorial council

       For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Council, as 
     authorized by Public Law 96-388 (36 U.S.C. 1401), as amended, 
     $33,286,000, of which $1,575,000 for the museum's repair and 
     rehabilitation program and $1,264,000 for the museum's 
     exhibitions program shall remain available until expended.

                             Presidio Trust

                          presidio trust fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I of the Omnibus 
     Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, $24,400,000 
     shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available 
     until expended, of which up to $1,040,000 may be for the cost 
     of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section 104(d) of the 
     Act: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize total loan principal, 
     any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed 
     $200,000,000. The Trust is authorized to issue obligations to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 104(d)(3) 
     of the Act, in an amount not to exceed $20,000,000.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service

[[Page 22387]]

     through procurement contract, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive Order issued pursuant to 
     existing law.
       Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation under this Act shall 
     be available to the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture for the leasing of oil and natural 
     gas by noncompetitive bidding on publicly owned lands within 
     the boundaries of the Shawnee National Forest, Illinois: 
     Provided, That nothing herein is intended to inhibit or 
     otherwise affect the sale, lease, or right to access to 
     minerals owned by private individuals.
       Sec. 303. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or 
     distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote 
     public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on 
     which congressional action is not complete.
       Sec. 304. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal 
     servants to any officer or employee of such department or 
     agency except as otherwise provided by law.
       Sec. 306. No assessments may be levied against any program, 
     budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act 
     unless advance notice of such assessments and the basis 
     therefor are presented to the Committees on Appropriations 
     and are approved by such Committees.
       Sec. 307. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act 
     of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the 
     ``Buy American Act'').
       (b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 308. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified 
     as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located 
     on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands 
     in a manner different than such sales were conducted in 
     fiscal year 1999.
       Sec. 309. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to 
     enter into or implement a concession contract which permits 
     or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the 
     Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
       Sec. 310. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for the AmeriCorps program, 
     unless the relevant agencies of the Department of the 
     Interior and/or Agriculture follow appropriate reprogramming 
     guidelines: Provided, That if no funds are provided for the 
     AmeriCorps program by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999, then none of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for the 
     AmeriCorps programs.
       Sec. 311. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used: (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New 
     Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of 
     such bridge, when it is made known to the Federal official 
     having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such 
     pedestrian use is consistent with generally accepted safety 
     standards.
       Sec. 312. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to accept or process 
     applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim 
     located under the general mining laws.
       (b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not 
     apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for 
     the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with 
     the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all 
     requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode 
     claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised 
     Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and 
     section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill 
     site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by 
     the applicant by that date.
       (c) Report.--On September 30, 2000, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the 
     Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section 
     314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
       (d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent 
     applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the 
     request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party 
     contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to 
     conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill 
     sites contained in a patent application as set forth in 
     subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the 
     sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party 
     contractor in accordance with the standard procedures 
     employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of 
     third-party contractors.
       Sec. 313. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     amounts appropriated to or earmarked in committee reports for 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by 
     Public Laws 103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208, 105-83, and 
     105-277 for payments to tribes and tribal organizations for 
     contract support costs associated with self-determination or 
     self-governance contracts, grants, compacts, or annual 
     funding agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the 
     Indian Health Service as funded by such Acts, are the total 
     amounts available for fiscal years 1994 through 1999 for such 
     purposes, except that, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
     tribes and tribal organizations may use their tribal priority 
     allocations for unmet indirect costs of ongoing contracts, 
     grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding 
     agreements.
       Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     fiscal year 2000 the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 
     Interior are authorized to limit competition for watershed 
     restoration project contracts as part of the ``Jobs in the 
     Woods'' component of the President's Forest Plan for the 
     Pacific Northwest or the Jobs in the Woods Program 
     established in Region 10 of the Forest Service to individuals 
     and entities in historically timber-dependent areas in the 
     States of Washington, Oregon, northern California and Alaska 
     that have been affected by reduced timber harvesting on 
     Federal lands.
       Sec. 315. None of the funds collected under the 
     Recreational Fee Demonstration program may be used to plan, 
     design, or construct a visitor center or any other permanent 
     structure without prior approval of the House and the Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations if the estimated total cost of 
     the facility exceeds $500,000.
       Sec. 316. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     or any other Act providing appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, the Forest Service or the Smithsonian 
     Institution may be used to submit nominations for the 
     designation of Biosphere Reserves pursuant to the Man and 
     Biosphere program administered by the United Nations 
     Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
       (b) The provisions of this section shall be repealed upon 
     enactment of subsequent legislation specifically authorizing 
     United States participation in the Man and Biosphere program.
       Sec. 317. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act for any fiscal year may be used to designate, or to 
     post any sign designating, any portion of Canaveral National 
     Seashore in Brevard County, Florida, as a clothing-optional 
     area or as an area in which public nudity is permitted, if 
     such designation would be contrary to county ordinance.
       Sec. 318. Of the funds provided to the National Endowment 
     for the Arts--
       (1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an 
     individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a 
     literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or 
     American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
       (2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure 
     that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made 
     to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be 
     used to make a grant to any other organization or individual 
     to conduct activity independent of the direct grant 
     recipient. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit payments 
     made in exchange for goods and services.
       (3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group, 
     unless the application is specific to the contents of the 
     season, including identified programs and/or projects.
       Sec. 319. The National Endowment for the Arts and the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities are authorized to 
     solicit, accept, receive, and invest in the name of the 
     United States, gifts, bequests, or devises of money and other 
     property or services and to use such in furtherance of the 
     functions of the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities. Any proceeds from such 
     gifts, bequests, or devises, after acceptance by the National 
     Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities, shall be paid by the donor or the representative 
     of the donor to the Chairman. The Chairman shall enter the 
     proceeds in a special interest-bearing account to the credit 
     of the appropriate endowment for the purposes specified in 
     each case.

[[Page 22388]]

       Sec. 320. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be expended or obligated to fund new revisions of 
     national forest land management plans until new final or 
     interim final rules for forest land management planning are 
     published in the Federal Register. Those national forests 
     which are currently in a revision process, having formally 
     published a Notice of Intent to revise prior to October 1, 
     1997; those national forests having been court-ordered to 
     revise; those national forests where plans reach the fifteen 
     year legally mandated date to revise before or during 
     calendar year 2000; national forests within the Interior 
     Columbia Basin Ecosystem study area; and the White Mountain 
     National Forest are exempt from this section and may use 
     funds in this Act and proceed to complete the forest plan 
     revision in accordance with current forest planning 
     regulations.
       Sec. 321. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be expended or obligated to complete and issue the 
     five-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act.
       Sec. 322. (a) In providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
     Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this 
     Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts 
     shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or 
     awarding financial assistance for projects, productions, 
     workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
       (b) In this section:
       (1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population 
     of individuals who have historically been outside the purview 
     of arts and humanities programs due to factors such as a high 
     incidence of income below the poverty line or to geographic 
     isolation.
       (2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved.
       (c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance 
     under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act 
     of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson 
     of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that 
     priority is given to providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs 
     that will encourage public knowledge, education, 
     understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
       (d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out 
     section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and 
     Humanities Act of 1965--
       (1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for 
     projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of 
     national impact or availability or are able to tour several 
     States;
       (2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15 
     percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State, 
     excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
       (3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually 
     and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each 
     grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
       (4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to 
     improve and support community-based music performance and 
     education.
       Sec. 323. None of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     planning, design or construction of improvements to 
     Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House without the 
     advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 324. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds provided in this Act to the Indian Health 
     Service or Bureau of Indian Affairs may be used to enter into 
     any new or expanded self-determination contract or grant or 
     self-governance compact pursuant to the Indian Self-
     Determination Act of 1975, as amended, for any activities not 
     previously covered by such contracts, compacts or grants. 
     Nothing in this section precludes the continuation of those 
     specific activities for which self-determination and self-
     governance contracts, compacts and grants currently exist or 
     the renewal of contracts, compacts and grants for those 
     activities; implementation of section 325 of Public Law 105-
     83 (111 Stat. 1597); or compliance with 25 U.S.C. 2005.
       Sec. 325. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 1999 in the 
     roads and trails fund provided for in the fourteenth 
     paragraph under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' of the Act of 
     March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501), shall be used by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the State in 
     which the amounts were derived, to repair or reconstruct 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands or 
     to carry out and administer projects to improve forest health 
     conditions, which may include the repair or reconstruction of 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands in 
     the wildland-community interface where there is an abnormally 
     high risk of fire. The projects shall emphasize reducing 
     risks to human safety and public health and property and 
     enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest 
     productivity, and biological integrity. The Secretary shall 
     commence the projects during fiscal year 2000, but the 
     projects may be completed in a subsequent fiscal year. Funds 
     shall not be expended under this section to replace funds 
     which would otherwise appropriately be expended from the 
     timber salvage sale fund. Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to exempt any project from any environmental law.
       Sec. 326. Hardwood Technology Transfer and Applied 
     Research. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter the 
     ``Secretary'') is hereby and hereafter authorized to conduct 
     technology transfer and development, training, dissemination 
     of information and applied research in the management, 
     processing and utilization of the hardwood forest resource. 
     This authority is in addition to any other authorities which 
     may be available to the Secretary including, but not limited 
     to, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, as 
     amended (16 U.S.C. 2101 et. seq.), and the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1978, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 1600-1614).
       (b) In carrying out this authority, the Secretary may enter 
     into grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with 
     public and private agencies, organizations, corporations, 
     institutions and individuals. The Secretary may accept gifts 
     and donations pursuant to the Act of October 10, 1978 (7 
     U.S.C. 2269) including gifts and donations from a donor that 
     conducts business with any agency of the Department of 
     Agriculture or is regulated by the Secretary of Agriculture.
       (c) The Secretary is hereby and hereafter authorized to 
     operate and utilize the assets of the Wood Education and 
     Resource Center (previously named the Robert C. Byrd Hardwood 
     Technology Center in West Virginia) as part of a newly formed 
     ``Institute of Hardwood Technology Transfer and Applied 
     Research'' (hereinafter the ``Institute''). The Institute, in 
     addition to the Wood Education and Resource Center, will 
     consist of a Director, technology transfer specialists from 
     State and Private Forestry, the Forestry Sciences Laboratory 
     in Princeton, West Virginia, and any other organizational 
     unit of the Department of Agriculture as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate. The overall management of the Institute will be 
     the responsibility of the USDA Forest Service, State and 
     Private Forestry.
       (d) The Secretary is hereby and hereafter authorized to 
     generate revenue using the authorities provided herein. Any 
     revenue received as part of the operation of the Institute 
     shall be deposited into a special fund in the Treasury of the 
     United States, known as the ``Hardwood Technology Transfer 
     and Applied Research Fund'', which shall be available to the 
     Secretary until expended, without further appropriation, in 
     furtherance of the purposes of this section, including 
     upkeep, management, and operation of the Institute and the 
     payment of salaries and expenses.
       (e) There are hereby and hereafter authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of this section.
       Sec. 327. No timber in Region 10 of the Forest Service 
     shall be advertised for sale which, when using domestic 
     Alaska western red cedar selling values and manufacturing 
     costs, fails to provide at least 60 percent of normal profit 
     and risk of the appraised timber, except at the written 
     request by a prospective bidder. Program accomplishments 
     shall be based on volume sold. Should Region 10 sell, in 
     fiscal year 2000, the annual average portion of the decadal 
     allowable sale quantity called for in the current Tongass 
     Land Management Plan which provides greater than 60 percent 
     of normal profit and risk at the time of the sale 
     advertisement, all of the western red cedar timber from those 
     sales which is surplus to the needs of domestic processors in 
     Alaska, shall be made available to domestic processors in the 
     contiguous 48 United States based on values in the Pacific 
     Northwest as determined by the Forest Service and stated in 
     the timber sale contract. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal 
     year 2000, less than the annual average portion of the 
     decadal allowable sale quantity called for in the current 
     Tongass Land Management Plan meeting the 60 percent of normal 
     profit and risk standard at the time of sale advertisement, 
     the volume of western red cedar timber available to domestic 
     processors at rates specified in the timber sale contract in 
     the contiguous 48 states shall be that volume: (i) which is 
     surplus to the needs of domestic processors in Alaska; and 
     (ii) is that percent of the surplus western red cedar volume 
     determined by calculating the ratio of the total timber 
     volume which has been sold on the Tongass to the annual 
     average portion of the decadal allowable sale quantity called 
     for in the current Tongass Land Management Plan. The 
     percentage shall be calculated by Region 10 on a rolling 
     basis as each sale is sold. (For purposes of this amendment, 
     a ``rolling basis'' shall mean that the determination of how 
     much western red cedar is eligible for sale to various 
     markets shall be made at the time each sale is awarded.) 
     Western red cedar shall be deemed ``surplus to the needs of 
     domestic processors in Alaska'' when the timber sale holder 
     has presented to the Forest Service documentation of the 
     inability to sell western red cedar logs from a given sale to 
     domestic Alaska processors at a price equal to or greater 
     than the log selling value stated in the contract. All 
     additional western red cedar volume not sold to Alaska or 
     contiguous 48 United States domestic processors may be 
     exported to foreign markets at the election of the timber 
     sale holder. All Alaska yellow cedar may be sold at 
     prevailing export prices at the election of the timber sale 
     holder.
       Sec. 328. For fiscal year 2000, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, with respect to lands within the National Forest 
     System, and the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to 
     lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, shall use the best available scientific and 
     commercial data in amending or revising resource management 
     plans for, and offering sales, issuing leases, or otherwise 
     authorizing or undertaking management activities on, lands 
     under their respective jurisdictions: Provided,

[[Page 22389]]

     That the Secretaries may at their discretion determine 
     whether any additional information concerning wildlife 
     resources shall be collected prior to approving any such 
     plan, sale, lease or other activity, and, if so, the type of, 
     and collection procedures for, such information.
       Sec. 329. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall:
       (a) prepare the report required of them by section 323(a) 
     of the Fiscal Year 1998 Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-83; 111 Stat. 1543, 1596-
     7);
       (b) make the report available for public comment for a 
     period of not less than 120 days; and
       (c) include the information contained in the report and a 
     detailed response or responses to any such public comment in 
     any final environmental impact statement associated with the 
     Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project.
       Sec. 330. Section 7 of the Service Contract Act (SCA), 41 
     U.S.C. section 356 is amended by adding the following 
     paragraph:
       ``(8) any concession contract with Federal land management 
     agencies, the principal purpose of which is the provision of 
     recreational services to the general public, including 
     lodging, campgrounds, food, stores, guiding, recreational 
     equipment, fuel, transportation, and skiing, provided that 
     this exemption shall not affect the applicability of the 
     Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. section 276a et seq., to 
     construction contracts associated with these concession 
     contracts.''.
       Sec. 331. Timber and Special Forest Products. (a) 
     Definition of Special Forest Product.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``special forest product'' means any 
     vegetation or other life forms, such as mushrooms and fungi 
     that grows on National Forest System lands, excluding trees, 
     animals, insects, or fish except as provided in regulations 
     issued under this section by the Secretary of Agriculture.
       (b) Fair Market Value for Special Forest Products.--The 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall develop and implement a pilot 
     program to charge and collect not less than the fair market 
     value for special forest products harvested on National 
     Forest System lands. The authority for this pilot program 
     shall be for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall establish appraisal methods and bidding 
     procedures to ensure that the amounts collected for special 
     forest products are not less than fair market value.
       (c) Fees.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall charge 
     and collect from persons who harvest special forest products 
     all costs to the Department of Agriculture associated with 
     the granting, modifying, or monitoring the authorization for 
     harvest of the special forest products, including the costs 
     of any environmental or other analysis.
       (2) Security.--The Secretary of Agriculture may require a 
     person that is assessed a fee under this subsection to 
     provide security to ensure that the Secretary of Agriculture 
     receives fees authorized under this subsection from such 
     person.
       (d) Waiver.--The Secretary of Agriculture may waive the 
     application of subsection (b) or subsection (c) pursuant to 
     such regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     prescribe.
       (e) Collection and Use of Funds.--
       (1) Funds collected in accordance with subsection (b) and 
     subsection (c) shall be deposited into a special account in 
     the Treasury of the United States.
       (2) Funds deposited into the special account in the 
     Treasury in accordance with this section in excess of the 
     amounts collected for special forest products during fiscal 
     year 1999 shall be available for expenditure by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture on October 1, 2000 without further 
     appropriation, and shall remain available until expended to 
     pay for--
       (A) in the case of funds collected pursuant to subsection 
     (b), the costs of conducting inventories of special forest 
     products, monitoring and assessing the impacts of harvest 
     levels and methods, and for restoration activities, including 
     any necessary vegetation; and
       (B) in the case of fees collected pursuant to subsection 
     (c), the costs for which the fees were collected.
       (3) Amounts collected in accordance with subsection (b) and 
     subsection (c) shall not be taken into account for the 
     purposes of the sixth paragraph under the heading of ``Forest 
     Service'' of the Act of May 23, 1908 (16 U.S.C. Sec.  500); 
     section 13 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. Sec.  500); 
     the Act of March 4, 1913 (16 U.S.C. Sec.  501); the Act of 
     July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. Sec.  1012); the Acts of August 8, 
     1937 and of May 24, 1939 (43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  1181 et. 
     seq.); the Act of June 14, 1926 (43 U.S.C. Sec.  869-4); 
     chapter 69 of title 31 United States Code; section 401 of the 
     Act of June 15, 1935 (16 U.S.C. Sec.  715s); the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec.  460l-
     6a); and any other provision of law relating to revenue 
     allocation.
       Sec. 332. Title III, section 3001 of Public Law 106-31 is 
     amended by inserting after the word ``Alabama,'' the 
     following phrase ``in fiscal year 1999 or 2000''.
       Sec. 333. The authority to enter into stewardship and end 
     result contracts provided to the Forest Service in accordance 
     with Section 347 of Title III of Section 101(e) of Division A 
     of Public Law 105-825 is hereby expanded to authorize the 
     Forest Service to enter into an additional 9 contracts in 
     Region One.
       Sec. 334. Local Exemptions From Forest Service 
     Demonstration Program Fees. Section 6906 of Title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Necessary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Local Exemptions From Demonstration Program Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each unit of general local government 
     that lies in whole or in part within the White Mountain 
     National Forest and persons residing within the boundaries of 
     that unit of general local government shall be exempt during 
     that fiscal year from any requirement to pay a Demonstration 
     Program Fee (parking permit or passport) imposed by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture for access to the Forest.
       ``(2) Administration.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish a method of identifying persons who are exempt from 
     paying user fees under paragraph (1). This method may include 
     valid form of identification including a drivers license.''.
       Sec. 335. Millsites Opinion. Prohibition on Millsite 
     Limitations.--Notwithstanding the opinion dated November 7, 
     1997, by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior 
     concerning millsites under the general mining law (referred 
     to in this section as the ``opinion''), in accordance with 
     the millsite provisions of the Bureau of Land Management's 
     Manual Sec. 3864.1.B (dated 1991), the Bureau of Land 
     Management Handbook for Mineral Examiners H-3890-1, page III-
     8 (dated 1989), and section 2811.33 of the Forest Service 
     Manual (dated 1990), the Department of the Interior and the 
     Department of Agriculture shall not limit the number or 
     acreage of millsites based on the ratio between the number or 
     acreage of millsites and the number or acreage of associated 
     lode or placer claims for any fiscal year.
       Sec. 336. Notwithstanding section 343 of Public Law 105-83, 
     increases in recreation residence fees may be implemented in 
     fiscal year 2000: Provided, That such an increase would not 
     result in a fee that exceeds 125 percent of the fiscal year 
     1998 fee.
       Sec. 337. No federal monies appropriated for the purchase 
     of land by the Forest Service in the Columbia River Gorge 
     National Scenic Area (``CRGNSA'') may be used unless the 
     Forest Service complies with the acquisition protocol set out 
     in this section:
       (a) Purchase Option Requirement.--Upon the Forest Service 
     making a determination that the agency intends to pursue 
     purchase of land or an interest in land located within the 
     boundaries of the CRGNSA, the Forest Service and the owner of 
     the land or interest in land to be purchased shall enter into 
     a written purchase option agreement in which the landowner 
     agrees to retain ownership of the interest in land to be 
     acquired for a period not to exceed one year. In return, the 
     Forest Service shall agree to abide by the bargaining and 
     arbitration process set out in this section.
       (b) Opt Out.--After the Forest Service and landowner have 
     entered into the purchase option agreement, the landowner may 
     at any time prior to federal acquisition voluntarily opt out 
     of the purchase option agreement.
       (c) Selection of Appraisers.--Once the landowner and Forest 
     Service both have executed the required purchase option, the 
     landowner and Forest Service each shall select an appraiser 
     to appraise the land or interest in land described in the 
     purchase option. The landowner and Forest Service both shall 
     instruct their appraiser to estimate the fair market value of 
     the land or interest in land to be acquired. The landowner 
     and Forest Service both shall instruct their appraiser to 
     comply with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisitions (Interagency Land Acquisition Conference 1992) 
     and Public Law 91-646 as amended. Both appraisers shall 
     possess qualifications consistent with state regulatory 
     requirements that meet the intent of Title XI, Financial 
     Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989.
       (d) Period to Complete Appraisals.--The landowner and 
     Forest Service each shall be allowed a period of 180 days to 
     provide to the other an appraisal of the land or interest in 
     land described in the purchase option. This 180-day period 
     shall commence upon execution of a purchase option by the 
     landowner and the Forest Service.
       (e) Bargaining Period.--Once the landowner and Forest 
     Service each have provided to the other a completed 
     appraisal, a 45-day period of good faith bargaining and 
     negotiation shall commence. If the landowner and Forest 
     Service cannot agree within this period on the proper 
     purchase price to be paid by the United States for the land 
     or interest in land described in the purchase option, the 
     landowner may request arbitration under subsection (f) of 
     this section.
       (f) Arbitration Process.--If a landowner and the Forest 
     Service are unable to reach a negotiated settlement on value 
     within the 45-day period of good faith bargaining and 
     negotiation, during the 10 days following this period of good 
     faith bargaining and negotiation the landowner may request 
     arbitration. The process for arbitration shall commence with 
     each party submitting its appraisal and a copy of this 
     legislation, and only its appraisal and a copy of this 
     legislation, to the arbitration panel within 10 days 
     following the receipt by the Forest Service of the request 
     for arbitration. The arbitration panel shall render a written 
     advisory decision on value within 45 days of receipt of both 
     appraisals. This advisory decision shall be forwarded to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture by the arbitration panel with a 
     recommendation to the Secretary that if the land or interest 
     in land at issue is to be purchased that the United States 
     pay a sum certain for the land or interest in land. This sum 
     certain shall fall within the value range established by the 
     two appraisals. Costs of employing

[[Page 22390]]

     the arbitration panel shall be divided equally between the 
     Forest Service and the landowner, unless the arbitration 
     panel recommends either the landowner or the Forest Service 
     bear the entire cost of employing the arbitration panel. The 
     arbitration panel shall not make such a recommendation unless 
     the panel finds that one of the appraisals submitted fails to 
     conform to the Uniform Appraisal Standard for Federal Land 
     Acquisition (Interagency Land Acquisition Conference 1992). 
     In no event, shall the cost of employing the arbitration 
     panel exceed $10,000.
       (g) Arbitration Panel.--The arbitration panel shall consist 
     of one appraiser and two lawyers who have substantial 
     experience working with the purchase of land and interests in 
     land by the United States. The Secretary is directed to ask 
     the Federal Center for Dispute Resolution at the American 
     Arbitration Association to develop lists of no less than ten 
     appraisers and twenty lawyers who possess substantial 
     experience working with federal land purchases to serve as 
     third-party neutrals in the event arbitration is requested by 
     a landowner. Selection of the arbitration panel shall be made 
     by mutual agreement of the Forest Service and landowner. If 
     mutual agreement cannot be reached on one or more panel 
     members, selection of the remaining panel members shall be by 
     blind draw once each party has been allowed the opportunity 
     to strike up to 25 percent of the third-party neutrals named 
     on either list. Of the funds available to the Forest Service, 
     up to $15,000 shall be available to the Federal Center for 
     Dispute Resolution to cover the initial cost of establishing 
     this program. Once established, costs of administering the 
     program shall be borne by the Forest Service, but shall not 
     exceed $5,000 a year.
       (h) Qualifications of Third-Party Neutrals.--Each appraiser 
     selected by the Federal Dispute Resolution Center, in 
     addition to possessing substantial experience working with 
     federal land purchases, shall possess qualifications 
     consistent with state regulatory requirements that meet the 
     intent of Title XI, Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery & 
     Enforcement Act of 1989. Each lawyer selected by the Federal 
     Dispute Resolution Center, in addition to possessing 
     substantial experience working with federal land purchases, 
     shall be an active member in good standing of the bar of one 
     of the 50 states or the District of Columbia.
       (i) Decision Required by the Secretary of Agriculture.--
     Upon receipt of a recommendation by an arbitration panel 
     appointed under subsection (g), the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall notify the landowner and the CRGNSA of the day the 
     recommendation was received. The Secretary shall make a 
     determination to adopt or reject the arbitration panel's 
     advisory decision and notify the landowner and the CRGNSA of 
     this determination within 45 days of receipt of the advisory 
     decision.
       (j) Admissability.--Neither the fact that arbitration 
     pursuant to this act has occurred nor the recommendation of 
     the arbitration panel shall be admissible in any court or 
     administrative proceeding.
       (k) Expiration Date.--This act shall expire on October 1, 
     2002.
       Sec. 338. A project undertaken by the Forest Service under 
     the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program as authorized by 
     Section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, as amended, 
     shall not result in--
       (1) displacement of the holder of an authorization to 
     provide commercial recreation services on Federal lands. 
     Prior to initiating any project, the Secretary shall consult 
     with potentially affected holders to determine what impacts 
     the project may have on the holders. Any modifications to the 
     authorization shall be made within the terms and conditions 
     of the authorization and authorities of the impacted agency.
       (2) the return of a commercial recreation service to the 
     Secretary for operation when such services have been provided 
     in the past by a private sector provider, except when--
       (A) the private sector provider fails to bid on such 
     opportunities,
       (B) the private sector provider terminates its relationship 
     with the agency, or,
       (C) the agency revokes the permit for non-compliance with 
     the terms and conditions of the authorization.

     In such cases, the agency may use the Recreation Fee 
     Demonstration Program to provide for operations until a 
     subsequent operator can be found through the offering of a 
     new prospectus.
       Sec. 339. National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities 
     Economic Diversification. (a) Findings and Purposes.--Section 
     2373 of the National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities 
     Economic Diversification Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6611) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``national forests'' and 
     inserting ``National Forest System land'';
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``the national forests'' 
     and inserting ``National Forest System land'';
       (C) in paragraph (5), by striking ``forest resources'' and 
     inserting ``natural resources''; and
       (D) in paragraph (6), by striking ``national forest 
     resources'' and inserting ``National Forest System land 
     resources''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``national forests'' and inserting 
     ``National Forest System land''; and
       (B) by striking ``forest resources'' and inserting 
     ``natural resources''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 2374(1) of the National Forest-
     Dependent Rural Communities Economic Diversification Act of 
     1990 (7 U.S.C. 6612(1)) is amended by striking ``forestry'' 
     and inserting ``natural resources''.
       (c) Rural Forestry and Economic Diversification Action 
     Teams.--Section 2375(b) of the National Forest-Dependent 
     Rural Communities Economic Diversification Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 6613(b)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``forestry'' and 
     inserting ``natural resources''; and
       (2) in the second and third sentences, by striking 
     ``national forest resources'' and inserting ``National Forest 
     System land resources''.
       (d) Action Plan Implementation.--Section 2376(a) of the 
     National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities Economic 
     Diversification Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6614(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``forest resources'' and inserting 
     ``natural resources''; and
       (2) by striking ``national forest resources'' and inserting 
     ``National Forest System land resources''.
       (e) Training and Education.--Paragraphs (3) and (4) of 
     section 2377(a) of the National Forest-Dependent Rural 
     Communities Economic Diversification Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     6615(a)) are amended by striking ``national forest 
     resources'' and inserting ``National Forest System land 
     resources''.
       (f) Loans to Economically Disadvantaged Rural 
     Communities.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 2378(a) of 
     the National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities Economic 
     Diversification Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6616(a)) are amended by 
     striking ``national forest resources'' and inserting 
     ``National Forest System land resources''.
       Sec. 340. Interstate 90 Land Exchange. (a) Section 604(a) 
     of the Interstate 90 Land Exchange Act of 1998 (105 Pub. L. 
     277; 12 Stat. 2681-326 (1998)) is hereby amended by adding at 
     the end of the first sentence: ``except title to offered 
     lands and interests in lands described in section 605(c)(2) 
     (Q), (R), (S), and (T) must be placed in escrow by Plum 
     Creek, according to terms and conditions acceptable to the 
     Secretary and Plum Creek, for a three-year period beginning 
     on the later of the date of enactment of this Act or 
     consummation of the exchange. During the period the lands are 
     held in escrow, Plum Creek shall not undertake any activities 
     on these lands, except for fire suppression and road 
     maintenance, without the approval of the Secretary, which 
     shall not be unreasonably withheld''.
       (b) Section 604(b) of the Interstate 90 Land Exchange Act 
     of 1998 (105 Pub. L. 277; 12 Stat. 2681-326 (1998)) is hereby 
     amended by inserting after the words ``offered land'' the 
     following: ``as provided in section 604(a), and placement in 
     escrow of acceptable title to the offered lands described in 
     section 605(c)(2) (Q), (R), (S), and (T)''.
       (c) Section 604(b) is further amended by adding the 
     following at the end of the first sentence: ``except Township 
     19 North, Range 10 East, W.M., Section 4, Township 20 North, 
     Range 10 East, W.M., Section 32, and Township 21 North, Range 
     14 East, W.M., W\1/2\W\1/2\ of Section 16, which shall be 
     retained by the United States''. The appraisal approved by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture on July 14, 1999 (the 
     ``Appraisal'') shall be adjusted by subtracting the values 
     determined for Township 19 North, Range 10 East, W.M., 
     Section 4 and Township 20 North, Range 10 East, W.M., Section 
     32 during the Appraisal process in the context of the whole 
     estate to be conveyed.
       (d) After adjustment of the Appraisal, the values of the 
     offered and selected lands, including the offered lands held 
     in escrow, shall be equalized as provided in section 605(c) 
     except that the Secretary also may equalize values through 
     the following, including any combination thereof--
       (1) conveyance of any other lands under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary acceptable to Plum Creek and the Secretary 
     after compliance with all applicable Federal environmental 
     and other laws; and
       (2) to the extent sufficient acceptable lands are not 
     available pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, cash 
     payments as and to the extent funds become available through 
     appropriations, private sources, or, if necessary, by 
     reprogramming.
       (e) The Secretary shall promptly seek to identify lands 
     acceptable for conveyance to equalize values under paragraph 
     (1) of subsection (d) and shall, not later than May 1, 2000, 
     provide a report to Congress outlining the results of such 
     efforts.
       (f) As funds or lands are provided to Plum Creek by the 
     Secretary, Plum Creek shall release to the United States 
     deeds for lands and interests in land held in escrow based on 
     the values determined during the Appraisal process in the 
     context of the whole estate to be conveyed. Deeds shall be 
     released for lands and interests in lands in the exact 
     reverse order listed in section 605(c)(2).
       (g) Section 606(d) is hereby amended to read as follows: 
     ``the Secretary and Plum Creek shall make the adjustments 
     directed in section 604(b) and consummate the land exchange 
     within 30 days of enactment of the Interstate 90 Land 
     Exchange Amendment, unless the Secretary and Plum Creek 
     mutually agree to extend the consummation date''.
       Sec. 341. The Snoqualmie National Forest Boundary 
     Adjustment Act of 1999. (a) In General.--The boundary of the 
     Snoqualmie National Forest is hereby adjusted as generally 
     depicted on a map entitled ``Snoqualmie National Forest 1999 
     Boundary Adjustment'' dated June 30, 1999. Such map, together 
     with a legal description of all lands included in the 
     boundary adjustment, shall be on file and available

[[Page 22391]]

     for public inspection in the office of the Chief of the 
     Forest Service in Washington, District of Columbia. Nothing 
     in this subsection shall limit the authority of the Secretary 
     of Agriculture to adjust the boundary pursuant to section 11 
     of the Weeks Law of March 1, 1911.
       (b) Rule for Land and Water Conservation Fund.--For the 
     purposes of section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-9), the boundary of the 
     Snoqualmie National Forest, as adjusted by subsection (a), 
     shall be considered to be the boundary of the Forest as of 
     January 1, 1965.
       Sec. 342. Section 1770(d) of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (7 U.S.C. 2276(d)) is amended by redesignating paragraph (10) 
     as paragraph (11) and by inserting after paragraph (9) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(10) section 3(e) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Research Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1642(e));''.
       Sec. 343. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to implement or enforce any 
     provision in Presidential Executive Order 13123 regarding the 
     Federal Energy Management Program which circumvents or 
     contradicts any statutes relevant to Federal energy use and 
     the measurement thereof, including, but not limited to, the 
     existing statutory mandate that life-cycle cost effective 
     measures be undertaken at Federal facilities to save energy 
     and reduce the operational expenditures of the Government.
       Sec. 344. The Forest Service shall use appropriations or 
     other funds available to the Service to--
       (1) improve the control or eradication of the pine beetles 
     in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States; and
       (2)(A) conduct a study of the causes and effects of, and 
     solutions for, the infestation of pine beetles in the Rocky 
     Mountain region of the United States; and
       (B) submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     study, within 6 months of the date of enactment of this 
     provision.
       Sec. 345. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the physical relocation of grizzly bears into the 
     Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness of Idaho and Montana.
       Sec. 346. Shawnee National Forest, Illinois. None of the 
     funds made available under this Act may be used to--
       (1) develop a resource management plan for the Shawnee 
     National Forest, Illinois; or
       (2) make a sale of timber for commodity purposes produced 
     on land in the Shawnee National Forest from which the 
     expected cost of making the timber available for sale is 
     greater than the expected revenue to the United States from 
     the sale.
       Sec. 347. Youth Conservation Corps and Related 
     Partnerships. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, there shall be available for high priority projects 
     which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as 
     authorized by Public Law 91-378, or related partnerships with 
     non-Federal youth conservation corps or entities such as the 
     Student Conservation Association, $1,000,000 of the funds 
     available to the Bureau of Land Management under this Act, in 
     order to increase the number of summer jobs available for 
     youth, ages 15 through 22, on Federal lands.
       (b) Within six months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall jointly submit a report to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Resources of the House of Representatives that includes 
     the following--
       (1) the number of youth, ages 15 through 22, employed 
     during the summer of 1999, and the number estimated to be 
     employed during the summer of 2000, through the Youth 
     Conservation Corps, the Public Land Corps, or a related 
     partnership with a State, local or nonprofit youth 
     conservation corps or other entities such as the Student 
     Conservation Association;
       (2) a description of the different types of work 
     accomplished by youth during the summer of 1999;
       (3) identification of any problems that prevent or limit 
     the use of the Youth Conservation Corps, the Public Land 
     Corps, or related partnerships to accomplish projects 
     described in subsection (a);
       (4) recommendations to improve the use and effectiveness of 
     partnerships described in subsection (a); and
       (5) an analysis of the maintenance backlog that identifies 
     the types of projects that the Youth Conservation Corps, the 
     Public Land Corps, or related partnerships are qualified to 
     complete.
       Sec. 348. Each amount of budget authority for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2000, provided in this Act for 
     payments not required by law, is hereby reduced by 0.34 
     percent: Provided, That such reductions shall be applied 
     ratably to each account, program, activity, and project 
     provided for in this Act.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000''.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
insist on its amendment and request a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized 
to appoint conferees on behalf of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Sessions) appointed Mr. Gorton, Mr. 
Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Burns, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gregg, 
Mr. Campbell, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dorgan, 
Mr. Kohl, and Mrs. Feinstein conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the talents of my Staff Director, Bruce 
Evans, are exceeded only by his patience.
  This bill has been on and off the floor for the better part of two 
months at this point and has now been passed by a fairly near unanimous 
vote as against the situation a year ago when we were barely able to 
begin debate on it.
  Mr. Evans has led the staff of both parties with great skill and 
dedication and has kept me out of many troubles I might otherwise have 
had. Perhaps the best tribute to that is the fact that no changes were 
made in this bill in this 2-month period as a result of contested votes 
on the floor of the Senate. Many were made as a result of reasonable 
requests on the part of many of our Members.
  I thank my ranking minority member, the distinguished senior Senator 
from West Virginia, whose help and cooperation from the beginning of my 
chairmanship of this subcommittee has been unfailing and of immense 
effect.
  Mr. President, I would once again like to thank both my staff and 
Senator Byrd's staff for all the hard work they have done on this bill. 
The Minority Clerk, Kurt Dodd, has been a pleasure to work with in his 
first full year with the Committee. He has proven to be a valuable 
resource for my staff through both his knowledge of the programs in 
this bill and his advocacy on behalf of members on the other side of 
the aisle. Kurt has been ably assisted by Carole Geagley of the 
minority staff, and by Liz Gelfer, whom we have enjoyed having on 
detail from the Department of Energy.
  My own subcommittee staff has also had benefit of an agency detailee 
this year. Sean Marsan has been with us courtesy of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and has done a wonderful job on a number of special 
projects. He has also performed well the laborious task of logging the 
thousands of member requests that the Subcommittee receives from 
members of this body. For those of my colleagues who have particular 
programs or projects funded in this bill--and I think I can safely say 
that includes each one of you--you owe Sean a debt of gratitude for 
keeping your ample requests in some sort of manageable order.
  I also want to thank the subcommittee professional staff for all of 
their good work. Ginny James continues to do a great job with the many 
cultural agencies funded in this bill, as well as with the Indian 
Health Service and U.S. Geological Survey accounts. I am pleased that 
we were able this year to provide modest increases for both the NEA and 
NEH, and hope that the two endowments appreciate the role Ginny has 
played in making this possible. It is not an easy thing to shepherd and 
provide counsel to the enthusiastic, but sometimes over-eager, arts 
community.
  Anne McInerney of the subcommittee staff has been responsible for the 
Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs accounts, and 
this year took on the added responsibility of managing the land 
acquisition accounts for the four land management agencies. Members of 
this body continue to put individual land acquisition projects toward 
the top of their priority lists, making it quite a challenge to balance 
those priorities against the core operating needs of the agencies 
funded in this bill. Anne has done a marvelous job in this regard, as 
well as in helping me address the many management challenges faced by 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee.
  Leif Fonnesbeck is in his first full year with the Committee staff. 
He has in effect been thrown in the deep end

[[Page 22392]]

by being assigned the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 
accounts, where he probably will spend as much time on policy issues as 
on more traditional appropriations matters. Of the half dozen or so 
amendments that have been debated and voted upon during consideration 
of this bill, I think all but one have been related to Leif's area of 
responsibility. He has acquitted himself very well, and has proven to 
be a quick study. We are glad to have him with us.
  Joe Norrell is also new to our subcommittee this year. Joe performs 
duties for both the Interior subcommittee and the VA/HUD subcommittee 
chaired by Senator Bond, and as such is frequently pulled in two 
different directions by two different masters. He has handled this 
difficult challenge with commitment and good humor, and has been a 
great help to both subcommittees.
  Finally, I would also like to thank Kari Vander Stoep of my personal 
staff for her work on the issues in this bill that are of particular 
importance to the people of Washington state. Kari has done a wonderful 
job in this regard since her predecessor, Chuck Berwick, departed for 
business school.
  Each of these individuals has already spent many late nights working 
on this bill, and will likely spend many more such nights over the 
coming weeks as we move to conference with the House. I want to express 
my own gratitude for their good work, and also convey the appreciation 
of the Ranking Member, Senator Byrd, and that of the Senate as a whole.

                          ____________________